Prostate Cancer Screening: A Case Study

In the case for PSA screening, PCa is the leading internal malignancy in US men and the second leading cause of cancer death in American men. Early detection of prostate cancers offers the best chance of cure. The PSA blood test is the best chance of cure. Currently, the PSA blood test is the best currently available way to detect PCa and it is easy, safe and inexpensive. PSA test results is a piece of information, it is what doctors do with the information that becomes the issue. However, the great majority of PSA detected tumors have the histologic characteristics of clinically important cancers. Also, PSA detection has found tumors early advancing the diagnosis by Seeral years (5-13) and prostate cancer mortality rates in U.S have decreased by 4% (patho book) since 1992, which is 5 years after initiation of prostate screenings. The dilemma is over treating the clinically unimportant disease versus under

Introduction Prostate cancer (PC) has surpassed lung cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men. An estimated 230,000 new cases were diagnosed in 2014, accounting for 27% of new cancer cases in men [1]. Although 80–90% of PC with metastatic lesions responds to initial androgen ablation therapy, most of these patients ultimately develop progressive disease of hormone refractory cancer [2]. Obesity, as a growing epidemic all over the world, has been linked to mortality of several cancers [3].

There are multiple methods for screening for Prostate Cancer; the most common is Digital Rectal Examination. During a digital rectal exam a doctor inserts a glove, lubricated finger into the rectum to feel for any irregular or abnormal firm area in the prostate gland.

The paper Prostate Cancer Screening is written as an analysis of the controversy on the use of screening for prostate cancer. The paper itself is written between doctors Elie Mulhem, Nikolaus Fulbright, and Norah Duncan. The analysis, while likely directed to those in the medical field, is tailored to be easily understood by laypeople. While the paper itself is a somewhat brief, surface level analysis of the situation, it does support the notion that prostate cancer screening through methods like prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and digital-rectal examinations (DRE) have questionable effectiveness. The intention of the paper appears to persuade doctors and the public to the viewpoint that prostate

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the commonest malignancy tumour in men and is second in cancer related death after lung cancer. PCa is mainly adenocarcinomas originating from the cortex of the gland (D’Elia et al. 2014).

Cancer screening plays a vital role in detecting the disease early and preventing it from spreading. The purpose of screening is looking for cancer before a person has any symptoms. It is very important to enlighten populations at risk the significance of early cancer screening. People should have clear, understandable and correct knowledge of these tests which will help them to make informed decisions about their health care. The purpose of this paper is to observe the Every Woman Matters Program, reasons of its ineffectiveness in meeting its goals, review two evidence based cancer screening advocacy programs and the strategies to create more effective screening program as a nurse leader.

This is a population based retrospective study. It examined the incidence of hospitalization among men who underwent TRUS guided prostates biopsy between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 2005 in Ontario Canada. No independent or dependent variables were identified. TRUS guided biopsies were carried out by relatively small number (437) of specialist physicians (urologists) (Nam et al., 2012). The researchers used Ontario Health Insurance Plan codes, Canadian

According to Ferrante, Shaw, and Scott (2011), prostate cancer is the most common cancer and second most common cancer death among men in the United States. Early detection permits appropriate and timely management, which can allow clinicians to treat the cancer effectively. When detected at early or regional stage, prostate cancer has a five-year survival rate of about 100%. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is the most widely used tumor marker and was approved by the FDA in 1994 as an aid in the early detection of prostate cancer (Duffy, 2011). PSA screening helps detect prostate cancer earlier, at lower clinical stages, and with a lower Gleason score (Cho et al., 2015).

The aim of screening is to see if you can see breast cancer at in early days, when any changes in the breast would be too small to feel and when there 's a good chance of successful

Prostate cancer, what’s the big deal? It’s treatable right? So many famous people have been diagnosed and they seem to be OK, right? Plus, nobody actually dies of prostate cancer, right? Wrong. It’s estimated that over 28,000 lives will be lost this year to Prostate cancer in the U.S. alone. Let’s put this into perspective: people always say flying is a safe way to travel causing only 469 deaths per year. This is especially true in comparison to driving which causes 35,080 deaths per year. In most recent statistics, number of men who died of prostate cancer was nearly the same as number of people who died in driving accidents, with 32,050 deaths. That’s 32,050 fathers, sons, brothers and uncles that won’t be around for our birthdays, Christmas, Thanksgiving, everyday events and much more.

Screening for prostate cancer is controversial. Currently the American Cancer Society and US Preventive Services Task Force recommend patients to discuss the risks/benefits of prostate screening with MD beginning at age 50 for men of average risk who have at least 10-yr life expectancy. Certainly, high risk patients (African Americans, family history) should have the discussion with their earlier (beginning at age 45).

There are no consistent or obvious signs of prostate cancer while it is still in the early

Moreover, with forward movements in technology, “cancer screenings have been shown to successfully identify pre-cancerous cells before they have metastasized, thus reducing a person's cancer risk by nearly half,” (Lee, 108). Observation is the most commonly used examination for early cancer screening. Observation by a physician is effective in recognizing suspicious lesions of the skin, larynx, lip, mouth, cervix, and external genitalia. Palpitation is the next most commonly used early cancer screening. It is mainly beneficial in detecting nodules, tumors, or lumps in the breast, salivary glands, mouth, subcutaneous tissues, thyroid, rectum, anus, prostate, testes, uterus, and ovaries. It can also detect enlarged lymph nodes in the axilla, neck, and groin. Cancers that are internal need a broadening of observation through x-rays, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, and endoscopes. Also, laboratory test such as occult blood testing of the feces and the Pap smear have proven useful in the detection of some of the types

impossible. To diagnose prostate cancer, an x-ray may be taken or a CT scanner may be used.

In the process of screening for PreDHA, the second portion of the screening process that changes have to be made. When the Soldier participates in the one-on-one counseling session with the HCP, the HCP should have the records of previous PreDHA’s along with previous PDHA/PDHRA to determine if the Soldier has had any changes in mental or psychological behavior after or in-between assessments. This will give the HCP a better overall picture of what the soldier has been experiencing since the last assessment, while being better able to provides or recommend further health care treatment is needed. Stress management and prevention also needs to be taken into