ABSTRACT
Interest in screening for urologic cancers has grown in recent years. This article considers the pros and cons of screening for four epidemiologically compelling urologic cancers: prostate, bladder, kidney, and testicular. Unfortunately, many of the urologic cancers do not meet the criteria for a successful cancer screening programnamely, high prevalence, availability of a sensitive and specific screening test, ability to detect clinically important cancers at an early stage, and cost-effectiveness. While age-based screening for prostate cancer should be offered to the general population after discussion of its benefits and risks, for the other three urologic malignancies the current consensus points more toward selective screening based on specific patient risk factors.
Footnotes
↵* Milton M. Lakin, MD, has received consulting fees and honoraria from Pfizer and Eli Lilly/ICOS for consulting, teaching/speaking, and advisory board membership. He also reported having stock ownership interest in Pfizer and Eli Lilly.
↵** David R. Staskin, MD, has received honoraria from ESPRIT Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Ortho-McNeil, Watson Pharmaceuticals, and Astellas Pharma for teaching/speaking.
↵* Drs. Stephenson and Campbell reported that they have no financial relationships that pose a potential conflict of interest with this article. Dr. Kuritzky reported that he has received honoraria from Pfizer, Eli Lilly, ICOS, Bayer, and GlaxoSmithKline for teaching/speaking.
- Copyright © 2007 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All Rights Reserved.