Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:20:54.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reactions of Potential Jurors to a Hypothetical Malpractice Suit Alleging Failure to Perform a Prostate-Specific Antigen Test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Extract

Screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test is controversial, as evidence to date has not demonstrated such screening does more good than harm. While the potential benefit of PSA screening on reducing prostate cancer mortality has not been documented in randomized trials, many risks of PSA screening have been well documented. These risks include a substantially higher risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis over a screenee’s lifetime, false-positive and false-negative test results, possible complications from biopsies done in response to suspicious test results, and substantial risks of side effects from subsequent prostate cancer treatments. Nevertheless, PSA screening is widespread in the United States, and many physicians in a national survey reported supporting routine PSA screening as well as getting PSA tests themselves, despite the lack of evidence.

Type
Independent
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ilic, D., O'Connor, D., Green, S., and Wilt, T., “Screening for Prostate Cancer,” The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 3 (2006): Article # CD004720; Harris, R. P. and Lohr, K. N., “Screening for Prostate Cancer: An Update of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force,” Annals of Internal Medicine 137, no. 11 (2002): 917–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirovich, B. E., Schwartz, L. M., and Woloshin, S., “Screening Men for Prostate and Colorectal Cancer in the United States: Does Practice Reflect the Evidence?” JAMA 289, no. 11 (2003): 14141420; Jerant, A. F., Franks, P., Jackson, J. E., and Doescher, M. P. “Age-Related Disparities in Cancer Screening: Analysis of 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Data,” Annals of Family Medicine 2, no. 5 (2004): 481–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, E. C. Y., Vernon, S. W., Haynes, M. C., O’Donnell, F. T., and Ahn, C., “Physician Perspectives on the Importance of Facts Men Ought to Know about Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing,” Journal of General Internal Medicine 18, no. 5 (2003): 350356; Chan, E. C. Y., Barry, M. J., Vernon, S. W., and Ahn, C., “Brief Report: Physicians and Their Personal Prostate Cancer-Screening Practices with Prostate-Specific Antigen,” Journal of General Internal Medicine 21, no. 3 (2006): 257–259.Google Scholar
Woolf, S. H. and Krist, A., “The Liability of Giving Patients a Choice: Shared Decision Making and Prostate Cancer (Editorial),” American Family Physician 71, no. 10 (2005): 18711872.Google Scholar
The American Cancer Society, “American Cancer Society Guidelines for the Early Detection of Cancer,” available at <http://www.cancer.org> (last visited March 3, 2008).+(last+visited+March+3,+2008).>Google Scholar
Volk, R. J. et al., “Trials of Decision Aids for Prostate Screening: A Systematic Review,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 33, no. 5 (2007): 428434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Woolf, and Krist, , supra note 4; Ransohoff, D. F., McNaughton Collins, M., and Fowler, F. J., “Why Is Prostate Cancer Screening So Common When the Evidence Is So Uncertain? A System without Negative Feedback,” American Journal of Medicine 113, no. 8 (2002): 663667.Google Scholar
Merenstein, D., “Winners and Losers,” JAMA, no. 1 (2004): 1516.Google Scholar
See Woolf, and Krist, , supra note 4.Google Scholar
See Volk, et al., supra note 6.Google Scholar
Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., Flowler, F. J., and Welch, H.G., “Enthusiasm for Cancer Screening in the United States,” JAMA 291, no. 1 (2004): 7178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See supra note 7.Google Scholar