My last post on this subject. I have to agree that after a certain age, screening on a regular basis is not necessary as you will most likely die from causes other than prostate cancer. The thing that I am seeing a lot of people miss here is that PSA, in itself, is not an indicator of prostate cancer, but you need to have some base line results to start with. Elevated PSA can be present with several conditions. It's the PSA Velocity that is a red flag for considering prostate biopsy and not just an elevated PSA. However, in order to know what the PSA Velocity is, you must have more than one PSA test at least one year apart.

If you wait until you have symptoms, you already have the cancer and the amount and type of treatment will be determined by the Gleason Score which is determined by the biopsy. I have been through this and I wished that they had found the cancer when my Gleason Score was low and I could have gotten away with just having the brachytherapy. Had I waited or not had another PSA test done to see what my PSA Velocity was, the cancer would have broken through the prostate wall and gone into the surrounding tissue, bone marrow and/or lymph nodes. If this is about cost effectiveness, see what it costs if the cancer gets into the bone or lymph nodes and see how much your life span changes.

I'm sorry if you guys that think that screening is not necessary until you get symptoms because it's a pain in the ass to go get screened. But if you are in your 50's or 60's, I think you would be singing a different tune if you get prostate cancer that has a high Gleason Score and then you have to go through all sorts of crap when you could have nipped it in the bud had you found out earlier. As someone previously mentioned, the bottom line is money and I pay my money to the insurance company to cover preventive tests.