
What a urologist wants you to know about prostate screening
When I learned that former President Joe Biden had not undergone prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening since 2014—and was later diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer—I knew there would be renewed interest and debate about prostate cancer screening guidelines.
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

Wall Street Journal
14 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Why Some Ultra-Processed Foods Go Down So Easily, So Fast
New research is helping to answer an important question about ultra-processed foods: Which ones may be healthier? One reason many ultra–processed foods often lead us to eat big meals and heavy snacks is because of their texture, which makes them go down easily and quickly, according to a new study presented this week at a conference of the American Society for Nutrition in Orlando, Fla.


CBS News
15 minutes ago
- CBS News
Woman dies after shot on Costa Mesa sidewalk, police search for suspect
Costa Mesa police are searching for a suspect after finding a 20-year-old woman suffering from several gunshot wounds on the sidewalk late Monday night. Around 11:10 p.m., police responded to the 1500 block of Lukup Lane, a residential area, to a call of shots fired and found the wounded Huntington Beach woman. Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue transported the woman to the hospital where she died from her injuries. Police said it appears the victim and the suspect knew each other. The identification of the victim has not been released yet. Anyone with information regarding this active investigation can call Detective Stocking at (714) 754-5392 or Sergeant Jacobi at (714) 754-5352.


Forbes
29 minutes ago
- Forbes
Donald Trump's Controversial Step To Not Close Coal-Fired Power Plants
Demolition of smokestacks in coal-fired San Juan Generating Station. We are used to executive orders from President Trump, including one on April 8 stating that the Department of Energy (DOE) could step in and prevent coal-fired power plants from closing if an emergency shortage of electricity existed in that region. But few expected the DOE to step in so soon and force a coal plant in Michigan to stay open on May 23 just a week before the closure date. This upends a lot of thinking about pollution of coal power plants, so how are the feds justifying this action? Bloomberg Green Newsletter on May 30 reported that the Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, announced on May 23 that the Campbell plant in West Olive, Michigan, will stay open for another three months under authority of the Federal Power Act. The plant is old, built in 1962, but generates a lot of electricity, 1.45 GW (gigawatts). It had planned to be closed by the owner, Consumers Energy, on May 31. Why the sudden fed action? An emergency order from Wright said, 'I hereby determine that an emergency exists in portions of the Midwest region of the United States due to a shortage of electric energy, a shortage of facilities for the generation of electric energy, and other causes.' There are two sides of the coin, according to the Bloomberg report. On one side is the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), a regional enterprise extending from Montana to Michigan and south to Louisiana and Texas. MISO has pointed out an increased risk of electricity shortages this summer, due to greater demand from industry and data centers, but also due to closing of fossil-fueled plants. In the next five years, over 120 coal plants in the U.S. are planned to close. The last 80 coal-fired plants in the U.S. are scheduled to close by 2040. On the other hand, an electricity emergency doesn't exist, according to MISO and Michigan officials. MISO's analysis showed generating capacity was sufficient for this year. The Public Service Commission of Michigan said the recent order from the DOE was unnecessary. The order would also boost the cost of electricity in Michigan and across the Midwest. The owner of the plant, Consumers Energy, has been deferring maintenance of the plant, and no longer ships coal there; it also has plans to move workers elsewhere. In short, to fix up the plant in order to keep it open would be costly. Coal electricity is now down to 15% from its peak of 50% U.S. supply in 2011. Why? One answer is renewables and batteries are cheaper. Another answer is air pollution. As documented by Bloomberg and Pope, in their book Climate Of Hope, 'Particulate matter from burning coal contributes to strokes, heart disease, lung disease, and cancer. If we could eliminate all the coal-fired power plants in China and India alone, we would save half a million lives every year.' The book attributes 7 million deaths globally from air pollution. Note: these are 2017 numbers. The book distinguishes air pollution from carbon pollution (climate change), which is also discussed in the book under the headings of Rising Seas, Severe Heat, Ocean Life, and Political Instability. Coal burns dirty and is the worst source of carbon polluting greenhouse gases. Fossil energies provide about 83% of the world's energy, but cause around 73% of greenhouse emissions. So, extending the life of a coal-fired power plant does not seem to be the best solution to an electrical crisis if or when it happens. Here is a recent summary of several alternatives that were laid out with arguments pro and con. Natural gas power plants provide 43% of grid electricity in the U.S., so gas plants would be using technology that the country already relies upon. Although Rystad Energy argue that global power demand will increase strongly this year and in years ahead, they predict fossil fuels will peak shortly in the power sector. Nuclear power is in the news since President Trump unleashed on May 23 executive orders on accelerating nuclear technologies. First, the cost of new nuclear reactors, whether traditional reactors or SMRs, is substantially higher than renewable energies. Second is the ubiquitous threat of exposure to nuclear radiation, either from nuclear accidents or from underground storage of nuclear waste. Third is that modern forms of nuclear energy, including SMRs, are at the commercial starting gate, illustrated by one of the first domestic contracts that was canceled by a Utah community when the SMR price grew 50% more than agreed to. Renewables. As well as commercial success in Australia, 90% of new energy in the U.S. in 2024 was provided by wind and solar renewables. Globally, renewables are rising and catching up to fossil sources in their percentages of electric power. There are three clear advantages of renewables. One is commercial success of current operations in the U.S. and Australia. Two is cheaper cost, particularly PV solar and storage batteries. Three, renewables tied to grid-scale batteries provide dispatchable power. The big battery at Hornsdale Power Reserve. The big battery at Hornsdale Power Reserve. Source: David Box. As energy secretary Chris Wright commented on Trump's executive order unleashing nuclear electricity, 'Nuclear has the potential to be America's greatest source of energy addition. It works whether the wind is blowing, or the sun is shining, is possible anywhere and at different scales.' The latter sentence is a negative reference to non-dispatchable renewable energies. But this is false: when a battery energy storage system (BESS) is connected to wind or solar, it makes the energy dispatchable. For example, in the state of South Australia renewables plus BESS have been providing 72% of grid electricity continuously for three years, and this is expected to rise to 100% by 2027. Renewables plus batteries have proven the stability of renewables commercially. Rystad Energy has reported that global battery systems set a record 200 gigawatt-hours (GWh) last year, implying a growth rate of 80%. Beginning at 0.5 terawatts (TW) in 2024, total BESS capacity will rise by almost ten times to over 4 TW by 2040. BESS, first built in 2017 by Elon Musk as the Hornsdale Power Reserve in South Australia, are expanding rapidly in the U.S. Intermittent power is no longer a reason to dismiss renewables, because BESS have solved this problem and solar and wind renewables with BESS are dispatchable. The answer to an electricity crisis in the U.S., which may be coming with the AI revolution, is renewables—especially PV solar plus battery storage, because they are cheaper and faster to install. Growth in U.S. renewables, strong in 2024, will continue to provide dispatchable power for new data centers, industry decarbonization, and also electric vehicles.