
What a urologist wants you to know about prostate screening
As a urologist, I regularly discuss the complexities surrounding PSA testing with my patients. The PSA test remains valuable for early detection, but it continues to generate controversy due to its limitations. Here's what you should know about PSA screening, why medical guidelines vary and why individualized approaches are essential.
Prostate-specific antigen, or PSA, is a protein produced by the prostate. The PSA blood test measures this protein to help screen for prostate cancer. Typically, a PSA level above 4 on lab results is flagged as 'abnormal,' prompting further evaluation. However, even PSA numbers below 4 can be concerning if they're rapidly increasing. That's why PSA tests are done annually: to monitor trends over time.
Elevated PSA levels don't always mean cancer. Noncancerous conditions like an enlarged prostate, prostatitis (inflammation), recent ejaculation, stress or even strenuous activity can temporarily raise PSA. Ultimately, the PSA level is just a starting point for a deeper investigation (or conversation).
Additionally, not all prostate cancers cause elevated PSA levels. Some aggressive cancers may produce normal PSA results. Ultimately, the PSA level is a starting point for further evaluation and deeper conversations with your doctor.
The controversy around PSA testing isn't really about the test itself, but about how its results are interpreted and acted upon. Before 2012, PSA screening was routinely recommended for all men over age 50. I completed my urology training that same year, witnessing firsthand how dramatically the screening landscape changed almost overnight.
In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against routine PSA screening due to concerns of 'overdiagnosis.' The worry was that screening could detect slow-growing cancers that may never cause harm but still result in unnecessary biopsies, anxiety, and treatments—some of which caused more harm than good.
The recommendation led doctors to scale back, causing routine PSA testing to decline sharply. However, by 2018, new research and rising concerns about aggressive prostate cancers led the USPSTF to revise their recommendations again, advising men aged 55 to 69 to engage in shared decision-making with their providers.
This current stance emphasizes personalized discussions between patients and doctors, acknowledging that there's no one-size-fits-all approach to PSA testing. According to their website, the USPSTF is now working on another update, so we can expect further adjustments in the near future.
As someone who experienced this shift firsthand early in my career, I deeply appreciate how critical shared decision-making and patient involvement are in navigating these complex screening choices. These ongoing changes in recommendations have also reinforced the importance for me as a physician to stay informed, continuously adapting my practice as new research and technologies emerge.
Several organizations provide prostate cancer screening guidelines, including the USPSTF, the American Cancer Society and the American Urological Association (AUA). Each offers slightly different recommendations for both patients and health care providers. The USPSTF generally focuses on minimizing potential harm from overtreatment, while the AUA provides detailed, individualized recommendations based on clinical factors and risk profiles.
Even after practicing urology for more than a decade, I still sometimes find it challenging to navigate these subtle differences in guidelines. Although I primarily follow the AUA guidelines—my overarching professional body—I've established a balanced approach that feels comfortable for me and, I believe, best serves my patients' interests.
I start PSA testing at age 40 for men at higher risk, such as African Americans or those with a first-degree family member who has prostate cancer. For most patients, I typically initiate annual PSA screening at age 50.
It's important to know that primary care doctors perform most prostate cancer screenings. Depending on their training, clinical judgment and professional guidelines, their approach may differ slightly from my take as a urologist. This highlights the importance of clear communication among you the patient, your primary care provider and your specialists. Only through these conversations can we create personalized screening strategies that align with your health goals.
President Biden's case raises a question: Could earlier PSA screening have detected his cancer sooner, at a more treatable stage? We will never know for certain. According to current guidelines, stopping screening in one's 70s is considered appropriate. Perhaps there was a shared decision to stop testing. From a guideline perspective, nothing was necessarily done incorrectly. Still, Biden's diagnosis highlights the potential consequences of discontinuing prostate screening for an otherwise healthy older adult.
Men in the United States now have an average life expectancy of approximately 76 years, with many living healthy, active lives well into their 80s and beyond. Older guidelines based on shorter lifespans now need updating to reflect today's longer, healthier lives. I believe that decisions about prostate screening in older adults should thus focus more on individual health status rather than chronological age alone.
Changing guidelines based on longer life expectancy will require thorough research and evidence-based data. Consequently, updates to recommendations will take time. What you can do in the meantime is be proactive in your conversations with your doctors about not just prostate cancer screenings but all cancer screenings.
Prostate cancer isn't the only medical condition subject to evolving guidelines. Screening recommendations for colorectal and breast cancers have also changed recently. Colon cancer screening now generally starts at age 45 instead of 50 due to rising cases among younger adults.
Breast cancer guidelines continue to vary among organizations, but the USPSTF updated its recommendation last year to say that most women should start getting mammograms earlier. These frequent shifts reflect ongoing research and the importance of personalized, informed conversations between patients and health care providers.
Historically, an elevated PSA test led directly to a prostate biopsy, potentially causing unnecessary anxiety and sometimes overtreatment. Today, however, we have more advanced PSA-based tests that help better identify significant prostate cancers. Advanced imaging, like prostate MRI, allows us to pinpoint suspicious areas before performing a biopsy, increasing accuracy and decreasing unnecessary procedures.
Biopsy techniques have also improved, some shifting from traditional transrectal biopsies to transperineal methods, reducing infection risks. Treatments have similarly evolved, emphasizing active surveillance of low-risk cancers and minimally invasive focal therapies. These advancements have significantly reduced side effects and improved quality of life, even among older patients.
In my office, I frequently discuss PSA screening with patients who are over 70. If a patient remains active and healthy and we anticipate good life expectancy, I generally recommend that we continue regular PSA tests. However, the final decision always belongs to the patient, after we carefully weigh the pros and cons together.
If your doctor hasn't initiated this conversation yet, it's important for you to bring it up. And remember, regardless of age, promptly inform your health care provider about any new urinary symptoms or health concerns. Staying proactive gives you the best chance to maintain good health this year and next.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Associated Press
4 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Judge dismisses Trump administration lawsuit against Chicago 'sanctuary' laws
CHICAGO (AP) — A judge in Illinois dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit Friday that sought to disrupt limits Chicago imposes on cooperation between federal immigration agents and local police. The lawsuit, filed in February, alleged that so-called sanctuary laws in the nation's third-largest city 'thwart' federal efforts to enforce immigration laws. It argued that local laws run counter to federal laws by restricting 'local governments from sharing immigration information with federal law enforcement officials' and preventing immigration agents from identifying 'individuals who may be subject to removal.' Judge Lindsay Jenkins of the Northern District of Illinois granted the defendants' motion for dismissal. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said he was pleased with the decision and the city is safer when police focus on the needs of Chicagoans. 'This ruling affirms what we have long known: that Chicago's Welcoming City Ordinance is lawful and supports public safety. The City cannot be compelled to cooperate with the Trump Administration's reckless and inhumane immigration agenda,' he said in a statement. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment. Heavily Democratic Chicago has been a sanctuary city for decades and has beefed up its laws several times, including during Trump's first term in 2017. That same year, then-Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, signed more statewide sanctuary protections into law, putting him at odds with his party.


Fox News
4 minutes ago
- Fox News
Michelle Obama portraitist's exhibit with trans Statue of Liberty pulled after pressure from Vance
EXCLUSIVE: Artist Amy Sherald canceled her upcoming exhibit featuring a portrait of a transgender Statue of Liberty at the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery after Vice President JD Vance raised concerns the show included woke and divisive content, Fox News Digital has learned. President Donald Trump signed an executive order in March that placed Vance in charge of overseeing the removal of programs or exhibits at Smithsonian museums that "degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy." Vance said Sherald's "American Sublime" exhibit violated Trump's executive order and was an example of woke and divisive content during a meeting June 9 with the Board of Regents, a source familiar with the meeting told Fox News Digital. "Vice President Vance has been leading the effort to eliminate woke indoctrination from our beloved Smithsonian museums," an administration official said in an email to Fox News Digital. "On top of shepherding the One Big Beautiful Bill through the Senate and helping President Trump navigate international crises, the vice president has demonstrated his ability to get President Trump's priorities across the finish line." Sherald, best known for painting former first lady Michelle Obama's official portrait in 2018, announced Thursday she was pulling her show, "American Sublime," from the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery slated for September, The New York Times first reported. Sherald said she was rescinding her work from the exhibition after being told that the National Portrait Gallery had some concerns about featuring the portrait of the transgender Statue of Liberty during the show. The painting, "Trans Forming Liberty," depicts a trans woman with pink hair wearing a blue gown. "These concerns led to discussions about removing the work from the exhibition," Sherald said in a statement, The New York Times first reported Thursday. "While no single person is to blame, it's clear that institutional fear shaped by a broader climate of political hostility toward trans lives played a role. "This painting exists to hold space for someone whose humanity has been politicized and disregarded. I cannot in good conscience comply with a culture of censorship, especially when it targets vulnerable communities. "At a time when transgender people are being legislated against, silenced and endangered across our nation, silence is not an option," Sherald added. "I stand by my work. I stand by my sitters. I stand by the truth that all people deserve to be seen — not only in life, but in art." The Smithsonian did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding Vance's involvement in the matter. The White House said the removal of Sherald's exhibit is a "principled and necessary step" toward cultivating unity at institutions like the Smithsonian. "The 'Trans Forming Liberty' painting, which sought to reinterpret one of our nation's most sacred symbols through a divisive and ideological lens, fundamentally strayed from the mission and spirit of our national museums," Trump special assistant Lindsey Halligan said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "The Statue of Liberty is not an abstract canvas for political expression. It is a revered and solemn symbol of freedom, inspiration and national unity that defines the American spirit." Other members of the Smithsonian's Board of Regents include the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, along with senators John Boozman, R-Ark.; Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev.; and Gary Peters, D-Mich., along with several other House members.


Geek Wire
5 minutes ago
- Geek Wire
Trump's mega bill blasted by Washington leaders: Clean energy cuts threaten AI boom, hike costs
Participants in a Seattle roundtable on the Republican-led repeal of clean energy tax credits, from left: Gregg Small, executive director of Climate Solutions; Brandon Provalenko, general manager of Western Solar; Sen. Patty Murray; Dawn Lindell, CEO of Seattle City Light; Joe Nguyen, director of the Washington State Department of Commerce; and Christine Reid, political director of IBEW Local 77. The event was held July 25 at the Seattle City Light Denny Substation. (GeekWire Photo / Lisa Stiffler) As energy demand spikes due to AI-driven data center expansions and the shift to electrification of transportation and other sectors, a sweeping bill signed this month by President Trump cuts resources for deploying renewable power, Washington state leaders said Friday. Washington Sen. Patty Murray convened a roundtable in Seattle on Friday to highlight the potential energy impacts of the 'Big Beautiful Bill' and issue a call to action. She warned of rising utility costs for businesses and residents and lost jobs in the energy sector. 'It's going to set us back in terms of our access to clean energy,' Murray said. 'It's so important that people know why this is coming and that we continue to raise our voices to fight back.' Joe Nguyen, director of the state's Department of Commerce, was blunt in his criticism of the bill in a GeekWire interview following the roundtable. 'This is a direct attack on tech,' Nguyen said. 'Without clean energy, we don't have technology.' That's particularly true, he added, as companies such as Amazon and Microsoft are building out capacity to meet AI demands. The Pacific Northwest is already home to numerous data center facilities, with plans to build more. In Washington alone, the Republican-backed bill could decrease electric capacity by 18 gigawatts over the next decade — or the equivalent of two Seattles' worth of energy — said Gregg Small, executive director of Climate Solutions, speaking at the event. Commerce Director Joe Nguyen addresses Sen. Patty Murray during the roundtable on clean energy. (GeekWire Photo / Lisa Stiffler) The legislation repeals tax cuts for renewable power efforts including wind and solar installations that were included in the Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. At the same time, the GOP measure bolsters support for fossil fuel power. President Trump staunchly defends the nixing of benefits for wind and solar, calling the intermittent power sources 'unreliable,' and even some critics of the president acknowledge that tax cuts for renewable power should phase out over time. Others say the support makes sense to get new energy deployed as quickly as possible. Renewable power made up 93% of the U.S. energy capacity that came online last year. 'Even if you're pro-fossil fuels, pro-coal, that is very expensive and it takes a long time to build. And also, the market is not demanding that right now,' Nguyen told GeekWire. The data center tech giants — also called hyperscalers — are seeking clean power sources given that they've set ambitious goals for shrinking their carbon impacts. The AI boom is making it increasingly difficult to reach their targets, with Microsoft and Amazon both reporting rising carbon emissions. At the same time, Trump this week announced his 'AI Action Plan' to accelerate data center growth in the U.S. and support America's leadership in AI. Clean energy advocates say there's a disconnect between those ambitions and policy that limits options for new power. 'For us to be leaders in that [AI] space, it requires hyperscalers. It requires energy for those hyperscalers,' Nguyen said. 'So limiting the amount of energy we can produce is counterintuitive in terms of trying to be a dominant player in the AI space.'