Peter Attia· MD
but also you go far beyond psa to things like 4k and other types of tests that add more nuance to this i think the story becomes much more clear that this type of early detection matters
Loading…
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.
but also you go far beyond psa to things like 4k and other types of tests that add more nuance to this i think the story becomes much more clear that this type of early detection matters
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.
it can be used provided you look at the density and the velocity uh of the PSA
so you take a man who does not who has not had a pro prostate biopsy and you stratify his PSA according to PSA density the ability to predict if he has a gleon 3 plus 3 or 3+4 or 4 plus 3 is really quite high and at least you can then stratify those patients more quickly into a PHI or a 4K and ultimately decide do they need a multiparametric MRI and you go down that path
So PSA by itself pretty bad. PSA density when you know prostate volume and PSA velocity when you have serial measurements starts to become very predictive. So you take a man who does not who has not had a pro prostate biopsy and you stratify his PSA according to PSA density. The ability to predict if he has a gleon 3 plus 3 or 3+4 or 4 plus 3 is really quite high and at least you can then stratify those patients more quickly into a PHI or a 4K and ultimately decide do they need a multiparametric MRI and you go down that path.