AAFP updates PSA screening guidelines 2 months after USPSTF issues final recommendation

The American Academy of Family Physicians today announced an update to its prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening guidelines for prostate cancer.

The AAFP updated its recommendations after its Commission on Health of the Public and Science examined multiple evidence reviews—the same used by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to build its final recommendation statement on PSA screening, published in May.

USPSTF recommendations aligned with the ideals of the AAFP in many cases, according to a release, including in the fact that both organizations dissuaded PSA screening in men 70 years old and up. The USPSTF and AAFP also agreed that men between 55 and 69 years old should be encouraged to make decisions about screening together with their physicians.

Margot Savoy, MD, MPH, chair of the Commission on Health of the Public and Science, said in a statement that updated AAFP guidelines aim to be a little clearer than their USPSTF counterparts.

“The key difference is that while the USPSTF recommendation for men ages 55-59 is ambiguous about whether it actually recommends screening,” she said. “We want family physicians to clearly understand that, based on the currently available evidence, we do not recommend routine PSA-based prostate cancer screening.”

Read the updated AAFP guidelines here. The USPSTF’s final recommendation statement can be found here.

""

After graduating from Indiana University-Bloomington with a bachelor’s in journalism, Anicka joined TriMed’s Chicago team in 2017 covering cardiology. Close to her heart is long-form journalism, Pilot G-2 pens, dark chocolate and her dog Harper Lee.

Around the web

The ACR hopes these changes, including the addition of diagnostic performance feedback, will help reduce the number of patients with incidental nodules lost to follow-up each year.

And it can do so with almost 100% accuracy as a first reader, according to a new large-scale analysis.

The patient, who was being cared for in the ICU, was not accompanied or monitored by nursing staff during his exam, despite being sedated.