Skip Navigation

International Journal of Epidemiology 2007 36(2):278-281; doi:10.1093/ije/dym049
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Martin, R. M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Martin, R. M
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2007; all rights reserved.

Commentary: Prostate cancer is omnipresent, but should we screen for it?

Richard M Martin

Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, UK. E-mail: Richard.martin@bristol.ac.uk

Accepted 20 July 2006

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.


   Introduction
 
In 1935, the pathologist Arnold Rice Rich reported on a study investigating his impression that microscopic prostate cancers could be detected at autopsy more commonly than were being diagnosed clinically.1 This study has been cited 215 times up to July 2006, and along with a 1954 autopsy series reported by LM Franks2 (cited 371 times), made a major contribution to our understanding of the natural history of prostate cancer. Rich's study confirmed his intuition of a large disparity between microscopic prevalence of prostate cancer and its clinical incidence, in contrast with many other solid tumours where these differences are not as marked. This commentary discusses the contemporary relevance of these findings 71 years on, with a focus on their implications for understanding the epidemiology of prostate cancer and its early detection and treatment.


   What were the main findings?
 
There were at least three key findings, and each of these still raise important questions today. Firstly, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

What is the prevalence of early prostate cancer?
Is it possible to detect these early cancers in alive men?
Given that many men with these histological prostate cancers die of other diseases, is it worth detecting them?

   Conclusion
 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Postgrad. Med. J.Home page
A Schattner
The unbearable lightness of diagnostic testing: time to contain inappropriate test ordering
Postgrad. Med. J., December 1, 2008; 84(998): 618 - 621.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
S. Ebrahim
Prostate cancer, Cochrane, Durkheim and Beer Lao
Int. J. Epidemiol., April 1, 2007; 36(2): 263 - 264.
[Full Text] [PDF]