The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
in general most recommendations would be if you have a RADS three four or five lesion in your prostate that and you've never had a biopsy before that you should consider a biopsy that samples the spot and systematically that would be what we call Target and systematically samples the areas around the target I.E the peripheral Zone in the area kind of mapped around that leion
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
rat 345 you need you need a biopsy unless your PSA density is incredibly low like 0.02
if on that bi that MRI right that I get after your initial diagnosis has a RADS four or five you go to immediate biopsy if the MRI shows that you have a RADS 3 but let's say a really really high PSA density like again I have concerns at the biopsy quality was poor you go to immediate biopsy
RADS 3 four5 you need you need a biopsy unless your PSA density is incredibly low like 0.02
if your MRI shows um no lesion but a high PSA density so a young man let's say under 60 that's a PSA density of more than 0.1 or 0.12 yep if you're older I'll give you a little bit more of a Le longer leash and we'll say 0.15 over 65 or 70 if you have a PSA density that's below that threshold and you have a high PSA low percent free Etc you need a biopsy in my opinion