
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
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Is Days Away From Securing His Questionable Air Force One Jet From Qatar
President Donald Trump is days away from getting a $400 million 'gift' from a foreign nation. The U.S. government is expected to finalize an agreement with Qatar next week to receive a Boeing 747 aircraft to be used as Air Force One, The Washington Post reported Friday. A July 7 communication reviewed by The Post and signed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Qatari Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of State for Defense Affairs Saoud bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani, confirms that Qatar will give the 'donation' to the Department of Defense. The deal, months in the making, raises legal, ethical and national security concerns. While the U.S. Constitution forbids anyone holding public office from accepting gifts from foreign governments without approval from Congress, Republicans have largely shrugged off the deal. 'Can't beat free,' Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) told reporters when asked about the offer in May. Trump, who has referred to the jet as a 'palace in the sky,' predictably feels the same way. 'Why wouldn't I accept a free gift?' Trump asked Fox News' Sean Hannity in May while aboard the current Air Force One. The ethical ramifications are so apparent that even the document reviewed by The Post appears to take extra effort to explicitly state that this isn't a bribe. 'Nothing in this [memorandum of understanding] is, or shall be interpreted or construed as, an offer, promise or acceptance of any form of bribery, undue influence, or corrupt practice,' the document reportedly said. The jet would become the new presidential plane until the end of Trump's term before being turned over to Trump's presidential library foundation. However, even before it can be used, the U.S. Air Force will likely spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money on renovating the plane — a process that could take years. Trump has made clear he'll accept 'gifts' from any nation willing to give them. At a White House meeting in May, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa jokingly told Trump he was 'sorry I don't have a plane to give you.' 'I wish you did,' Trump responded. 'I'd take it. If your country offered the United States Air Force a plane, I would take it.'
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Democratic Party's Brand Is Cooked
Voters have increasingly little faith in the Democrats, a new Wall Street Journal poll found, with the party reaching its lowest favorability rating in more than three decades. Voters overwhelmingly believe that Republicans are better able to handle key issues in Congress than Democrats. The survey found that the majority of voters, 63 percent, have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party. Only 33 percent hold a favorable view. This is the most unpopular that Democrats have been according to Journal polls dating back to 1990. As President Donald Trump enacts an increasingly authoritarian agenda and provides little economic benefit to the average American, Democrats are hopeful anti-Trump backlash will give them a strong showing in the 2026 midterm election. While slightly more people expect to vote for Democrats next year than Republicans, according to the Journal poll, Democrats' overall favorability has only dropped since Trump took office. 'The Democratic brand is so bad that they don't have the credibility to be a critic of Trump or the Republican Party,' John Anzalone, a Democratic pollster who worked on the survey, told the Journal. 'Until they reconnect with real voters and working people on who they're for and what their economic message is, they're going to have problems.' Anzalone's firm, which consulted for both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential campaigns, worked on the survey with Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio. According to the survey, voters think Republicans in Congress are more capable at handling the economy, inflation and rising prices, tariffs, immigration, 'illegal' immigration, the Russia-Ukraine war, and foreign policy. On the topic of 'illegal' immigration, 48 percent have their faith in Republicans and 24 percent choose Democrats. Democrats scored higher on health care and vaccine policy. Both parties tied at 37 percent on the issue of looking out for middle class families. 'As much as I fully believe that Democrats are not doomed for all eternity, I also believe that many Democrats aren't quite grappling with the serious credibility problems the party still faces,' Democratic operative Tré Easton posted on X. 'The podcasts and everything are real cute, but we've got work to do.' Democrats also scored low in a Quinnipiac poll released earlier this month. In that survey, approval of congressional Democrats reached a new low of 19 percent, with 72 percent of voters saying they disapproved. 'This is a record low since March 2009 when the Quinnipiac University Poll first began asking this question of registered voters,' the university wrote. The Quinnippiac poll found that even registered Democrats disapproved of the party: Thirty-nine percent approved of how Democrats in Congress were handling their jobs, while 52 percent disapproved. Among registered Republicans, 77 percent approved of how Republicans are operating in Congress. In the findings from the Journal, voters are mixed on Trump. About half, or 55 percent, of voters say the country is headed in the wrong direction. This is down from 70 percent in January, meaning voters have become more optimistic since Trump took office, yet Trump is not wildly popular. He has a favorability rating of 45 percent, and an unfavorability rating of 52 percent. A total of 46 percent approve of what Trump is doing as president, and 52 percent disapprove. Fifty-three percent disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy, while 44 percent approve. On the issues of inflation, tariffs, immigration, looking out for middle class families, health care, vaccine policy, foreign policy, and the Russia-Ukraine war, voters disapprove of the job Trump is doing. On the topic of 'illegal' immigration, though, 51 percent approve and 49 percent disapprove. The Republican Party is not wildly popular either, though, with 54 percent of voters having an unfavorable view, compared to the 43 percent who have a favorable view. More from Rolling Stone Trump Claims Someone May Have Forged His Signature on Birthday Letter to Epstein I Worked With Stephen Colbert. Here's Why His Cancellation Should Scare You Yes, America Is an Oligarchy Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence


Fox News
15 minutes ago
- Fox News
Law enforcement's response to fatal shooting of state lawmakers raises questions
Law enforcement's response to the June 14 shooting of two Minnesota lawmakers and their spouses is raising new questions. The Minnesota Star Tribune (MST) examined the timeline of events and found several instances in which law enforcement made unsettling decisions. On June 14, state Sen. John Hoffman, 34, DFL, and Rep. Melissa Hortman, DFL, along with their spouses, were shot in their respective homes. Hoffman and his wife were wounded, but survived, while Hortman and her husband were killed. Despite knowing that a suspect — later identified as Vance Boelter — was impersonating an officer and had targeted a politician, law enforcement took 10 hours to alert lawmakers to the potential danger, according to MST. Following the shooting that wounded Hoffman and his wife, a New Hope police officer who was self-dispatched to the home of state Sen. Ann Rest, DFL, allegedly came in contact with Boelter. According to MST, Boelter did not respond to requests from the officer, who then drove away to check on Rest. However, the officer's interaction with the suspect was not immediately reported, according to MST. Additionally, the outlet alleges that Brooklyn Park police encountered the gunman at the Hortmans' home and saw him shoot Mark Hortman in the doorway before firing at the suspect. The gunman then went inside the home and additional gunfire was seen inside the house, according to MST. MST also claims that some police officers and legislators were not fully aware of the threat for several hours. Boelter was indicted on six federal charges in connection with the shootings, including the attempted shooting of Hope Hoffman. The maximum penalties for the charges include life in prison or death, according to the DOJ. "Vance Boelter planned and carried out a night of terror that shook Minnesota to its core," Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson said in a statement. "He carried out targeted political assassinations the likes of which have never been seen in Minnesota. We grieve with the Hortman family and continue to pray for the recovery of the Hoffmans. Today, a grand jury indicted Boelter with the most serious of federal charges for these heinous political assassinations. Let me be clear: Boelter will see justice." Fox News Digital reached out to Brooklyn Park Police and New Hope Police outside of office hours and did not receive a response from either department in time for publication.