We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Editor's Correspondence |

Prostate-Specific Antigen for Prostate Cancer Screening: A Different Strategy Should Be Planned

Giuseppe Lippi, MD; Camilla Mattiuzzi, MD; Gianfranco Cervellin, MD
JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(5):392. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2173.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


We read with interest the Research Letter by Howard1 about declines in prostate cancer incidence among men 75 years and older after changes in screening recommendations. Along with the valuable comments of Katz,2 who clearly emphasized that the harms of screening may largely outweigh the benefits in younger men as well, it is now undeniable that a rather different screening strategy should be planned, based on the use of more specific and clinically useful biomarkers. The leading drawbacks of total prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing are indeed represented by overdiagnosis and inability to reliably differentiate indolent from aggressive cancers. However, there is now solid evidence that the Prostate Health Index (PHI) has a diagnostic specificity that is 2- to 4-fold higher than total PSA at identical sensitivity thresholds.3 A significant relationship between Gleason score and PHI was also found in men with total PSA between 2 and 10 ng/mL (to convert to micrograms per liter, multiply by 1), which is thereby crucial for identifying those men harboring more clinically relevant prostate cancers and increased likelihood of death.4 Even more interestingly, a strategy entailing the combination of total PSA and PHI was also proven to be less expensive than a PSA-only strategy, with gains of up to 0.08 in quality-adjusted life years.5

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles