Patient education and counseling · 2026
Prostate cancer screening: Evidence uncertainty and implications for patient education and counseling.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Takahashi Takeshi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer screening remains widely practiced and is frequently supported by recommendations based on expert consensus. However, the evidentiary basis for screening warrants critical evaluation in light of contemporary principles of evidence-based medicine and clinical research.
DISCUSSION: Most prostate cancer diagnoses are derived from screening pathways that depend on histopathologic criteria whose clinical validity has not been rigorously established. In addition, the natural history of screen-detected prostate cancer remains incompletely understood. These limitations complicate both the interpretation of screening outcomes and the design of scientifically robust studies. Many studies of prostate cancer screening lack appropriate control groups and do not use overall survival as a primary endpoint. By contrast, the highest level of evidence is provided by large randomized controlled trials, including PLCO, ERSPC, and CAP, which have not provided convincing evidence of an overall survival benefit. A 2026 Cochrane review similarly found that screening may reduce overall mortality, but estimated the effect to be very small and rated the certainty of the evidence as low. Although reductions in prostate cancer-specific mortality have been reported, such outcomes are difficult to ascertain reliably and provide less certain evidence of clinical benefit than prespecified overall survival endpoints.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient education and counseling regarding prostate cancer screening should be grounded in a rigorous appraisal of the available evidence. Consistent with evidence-based medicine and reporting standards such as CONSORT and PRISMA, uncertainty regarding screening benefits should be communicated transparently before testing. This communication of uncertainty is an essential component of informed consent and can also provide the basis for meaningful shared decision-making. Informed patient preferences and expert opinion should be considered in the context of the available evidence and its uncertainty.
DISCUSSION: Most prostate cancer diagnoses are derived from screening pathways that depend on histopathologic criteria whose clinical validity has not been rigorously established. In addition, the natural history of screen-detected prostate cancer remains incompletely understood. These limitations complicate both the interpretation of screening outcomes and the design of scientifically robust studies. Many studies of prostate cancer screening lack appropriate control groups and do not use overall survival as a primary endpoint. By contrast, the highest level of evidence is provided by large randomized controlled trials, including PLCO, ERSPC, and CAP, which have not provided convincing evidence of an overall survival benefit. A 2026 Cochrane review similarly found that screening may reduce overall mortality, but estimated the effect to be very small and rated the certainty of the evidence as low. Although reductions in prostate cancer-specific mortality have been reported, such outcomes are difficult to ascertain reliably and provide less certain evidence of clinical benefit than prespecified overall survival endpoints.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient education and counseling regarding prostate cancer screening should be grounded in a rigorous appraisal of the available evidence. Consistent with evidence-based medicine and reporting standards such as CONSORT and PRISMA, uncertainty regarding screening benefits should be communicated transparently before testing. This communication of uncertainty is an essential component of informed consent and can also provide the basis for meaningful shared decision-making. Informed patient preferences and expert opinion should be considered in the context of the available evidence and its uncertainty.