As a man ages, his risk of developing prostate cancer increases dramatically. Besides increasing age, several factors boost the risk of prostate cancer. Find out what they are--and how they impact prostate cancer screening recommendations.
Many—but not all—men with pelvic pain and other symptoms of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) have clear evidence of prostate inflammation. Conversely, some men who have prostatic inflammation experience no symptoms at all. Recent research may help explain why.
To make an informed decision about PSA screening, men need to have a thorough discussion about the pros and cons with their doctors or other health care providers. Only a minority of men have such a discussion.
Over the past 25 years, research has produced conflicting results about this potential risk. Here's the latest.
If, based on initial screening results from a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test or digital rectal exam (DRE), your doctor suspects you have prostate cancer, undergoing a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan as your next step might spare you the medical risks of a prostate biopsy and improve your chances of an accurate diagnosis, say British researchers.
Several treatment options are available for localized prostate cancer. A 2017 study in JAMA finds there are distinct patterns of adverse effects associated with each.
Do men with prostate cancer who take a statin drug to lower their cholesterol have reduced death rates? According to a new study ...
Doctors know that testosterone promotes the growth of prostate cells and that blocking this naturally occurring hormone can help control the growth of prostate cancer. But there is great controversy over whether using testosterone supplements increases a man's risk for prostate cancer.
Men who have had a radical prostatectomy (RP) and who subsequently have a recurrence of prostate cancer fare better if they undergo salvage radiation treatment plus antiandrogen therapy instead of radiation alone, according to a 2017 study in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Limiting consumption of saturated fats, which are found primarily in animal foods, is important for overall health and cardiovascular disease prevention. A 2017 study suggests that saturated fat may also be associated with more aggressive prostate cancer.
The most important factor in predicting the current state of a man's prostate cancer and determining his treatment options is his Gleason score. This method of grading a tumor's aggressiveness was devised in the 1960s by Dr. Donald Gleason.
In the years since, methods of diagnosing prostate cancer and doctors' understanding of tumor behavior have changed. Although Dr. Gleason's original scoring system has evolved to reflect those changes, a consensus is emerging that it's time to modify the way a man's prognosis is reported as well.
Active surveillance offers men who have a prostate cancer that is unlikely to cause harm without treatment the option of careful monitoring with the intention to treat for cure should the disease change over time. This management approach is most often recommended for men who have very-low- to low-risk prostate cancers (favorable risk) that are believed to be small volume, especially older men whose cancers are unlikely to become life-threatening during the remaining years of their life.
Some treatment guidelines suggest that active surveillance may be an option for certain men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, although the practice is controversial.
When men discuss screening for prostate cancer with their physicians, some ask: Do I really need the digital rectal exam (DRE)? This physical evaluation allows doctors to check for growths and other abnormalities on the prostate that could signal the presence of cancer, but it also causes anxiety in many men.
Men diagnosed with prostate cancer are faced with an array of prostate treatment options. Proton beam therapy—a form of external beam radiation therapy—is the latest choice now available in the United States. But it’s a controversial option as well, with some critics suggesting that its popularity may be driven by advertising rather than by sound scientific evidence of benefit over other therapies.