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 |

No One Dies From Prostate Cancer?

Diane Chau, MD
Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(14):1525. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.14.1525-c.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


The study by Concato et al1 identified 501 men who received a diagnosis of prostate cancer between 1991 and 1995 and died by 1999. These dates are more than 10 years ago; medicine has changed a lot in a 10-year period. Practice management for heart disease, stroke, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and prevention of these issues has improved outcomes as reported in numerous landmark studies. Based on these 10-year-old data, the authors concluded that routine prostate cancer screening of asymptomatic men should not be endorsed because no reduction in mortality was found in their study. As a practicing physician whose focus is on end-of-life care and geriatrics, I see patients dying of their prostate cancer with bone metastasis who were given their diagnosis after their study inclusion period. It appears that changes in medical management of other illness (eg, heart disease and stroke prevention) advanced during these past 10 years introduce the question of validity into their study and conclusion. How do we know that current (not 10 years ago) screening for prostate cancer would not curb mortality? In our age of rapid information dissemination via the internet and other communication means, should we not also update our clinical studies databases to reflect more relevant times? Their antiquated study population makes me question the validity of their conclusion.

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.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
From Evidence to Recommendations

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Overall Confidence in Effect Estimates