Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Oct 16;8(4):e0041.
doi: 10.5041/RMMJ.10318.

Update on Screening for Urological Malignancies

Affiliations
Review

Update on Screening for Urological Malignancies

Azik Hoffman et al. Rambam Maimonides Med J. .

Abstract

Urological malignancies are a major source of morbidity and mortality in men over 40. Screening for those malignancies has a potential benefit of reducing both. However, even after more than two decades of screening for prostate cancer, the implications of most resulting information are still a matter of debate. Controversy extends over several aspects of prostate cancer screening programs, including age of onset, defining populations at risk, most appropriate intervals, as well as the optimal methods to be used for screening. The medical community is still divided regarding the effectiveness of prostate cancer-related death prevention and its benefits-to-harms ratio, reflecting an inconsistency regarding screening recommendations. Similarly, benefits of screening for urothelial and kidney tumors are yet lacking high-level evidence, although recent evidence supports screening of populations at risk. Clearly, the current era of evolving molecular and genetic biomarkers harbors the potential to change screening practice. In this paper, we review current guidelines as well as giving an update on new developments which might influence screening strategies in common urological malignancies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References

    1. Pinsky PF, Prorok PC, Kramer BS. Prostate cancer screening - a perspective on the current state of the evidence. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1285–9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb1616281. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. WHO Chronicle Geneva. 1968;22:473. Public Health Papers #34.
    1. Fitzmaurice C, Allen C, Barber RM, et al. Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration. A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:524–48. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.5688. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2004. National Cancer Institute; Bethesda, MD: 2007. [accessed June 1, 2017]. Available at: http://bit.ly/2y8zqvf.
    1. Bell KJ, Del Mar C, Wright G, Dickinson J, Glasziou P. Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: a systematic review of autopsy studies. Int J Cancer. 2015;137:1749–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29538. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources