Question

A screening test for prostate cancer has been shown to increase mean survival time by 5 years, and patients diagnosed via screening have demonstrated a better response to treatment than those not detected by screening.

Would you determine this screening program a success?

Why/why not? Provide at least 3 detailed reasons for your answer.

Answer 1

the decision to undergo screening for cancer was a powerful predictor of life expectancy.

Due to increasing life expectancy and the introduction of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, a rising number of elderly men are diagnosed with prostate cancer. Besides PSA serum levels and Gleason score, age is considered to be a key prognostic factor in terms of treatment decisions.

The above two main screening tests have definitely increased the life expectancy of the patients,

As they are key to decide that what treatment procedure would best for the patients.

Although organ-confined disease can be cured by radical prostatectomy and full-dose local radiation therapy, treatment options for advanced- stage disease remain palliative. They include active surveillance, or watchful waiting, early versus delayed hormonal therapy to control disease progression, and continuous or intermittent androgen deprivation.

Providing appropriate Gleason score helps in determining the the correctly treatment process and to predict the probable life expectancy of the patient.

The PSA screening allows to study the course of treatment whether the carcinoma is under control or not.

The newer screening methods also allowed the early detection of cancer, and had a better outcome hence.

As age is the major risk factor for prostate cancer, the later the diseases is diagnosed, poorer is the prognosis of the disease.