Prostate cancer remains one of the most commonly diagnosed malignancies among men worldwide. Despite its significant disease burden, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has been the subject of considerable controversy over the past two decades. Conflicting clinical guidelines, evolving interpretations of randomized controlled trials, and concerns regarding overdiagnosis and overtreatment have contributed to inconsistent recommendations regarding screening. Consequently, different generations of medical students and trainees have received substantially different messages about the role of PSA testing in clinical practice.
Much of the historical controversy surrounding PSA screening stems from three landmark trials: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) trial, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), and the Goteborg trial. The PLCO trial, published in 2009, demonstrated no significant reduction in prostate cancer mortality with organized annual PSA screening compared with usual care. However, substantial PSA testing in the control group complicated interpretation of these findings.(Andriole et al., 2009) Conversely, the ERSPC trial demonstrated a significant reduction in prostate cancer mortality, with an approximately 20% relative reduction after nine years of follow-up.(Schröder et al., 2009) The Goteborg trial subsequently demonstrated an even greater mortality benefit, reporting a 44% relative reduction in prostate cancer mortality after 14 years.(Hugosson et al., 2010) These conflicting findings contributed to uncertainty regarding the overall benefit of screening and influenced subsequent guideline recommendations.
In 2012, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommended against routine PSA-based screening, concluding that the potential harms outweighed the benefits.(Moyer & U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, 2012) This recommendation represented a significant departure from earlier screening practices and coincided with a broader movement in medical education emphasizing Choosing Wisely principles, reducing unnecessary investigations, and preventing patient harm. Although these principles remain fundamental to high-quality healthcare, their application to PSA screening may have inadvertently contributed to an overly generalized perception that screening provides little clinical benefit.
Importantly, subsequent evidence has strengthened the argument for PSA screening. Extended follow-up of the ERSPC trial demonstrated a sustained reduction in prostate cancer mortality, with the 2025 analysis reporting a 13% relative reduction after 23 years.(Roobol et al., 2025) At this follow-up, the number needed to invite for screening to prevent one prostate cancer death was 456. Similarly, 22-year follow-up of the Goteborg trial demonstrated a 29% reduction in prostate cancer mortality, with a number needed to invite of 221.(Frånlund et al., 2022) The 15-year follow-up of another trial done in the United Kingdom – the Cluster Randomised Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer – also demonstrated a statistically significant, albeit modest, reduction in prostate cancer mortality following a single invitation for PSA screening.(Martin et al., 2024)
The magnitude of this benefit also deserves consideration alongside other established cancer screening programs. For context, estimates from randomized screening trials suggest that approximately 645–1,724 women need to undergo mammography to prevent one breast cancer death, depending on age.(Klarenbach et al., 2018) Furthermore, two studies examining biennial fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) demonstrated a 33% and 40% relative reduction in colorectal cancer mortality at 10 years of follow-up.(Doubeni et al., 2024; Chiu et al., 2021) Although these estimates are derived from different study designs and follow-up periods and therefore cannot be directly compared, they demonstrate that PSA screening provides a clinically meaningful mortality benefit within the range of benefits observed with other widely accepted cancer screening strategies.
More recent screening strategies have also attempted to preserve the benefits of early detection while reducing unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis. The Goteborg-2 trial demonstrated that incorporating prostate MRI and targeted biopsy into screening substantially reduced the detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer.(Hugosson et al., 2022) Similarly, the 2024 ProScreen randomized trial evaluated a screening pathway incorporating PSA, a kallikrein panel, and MRI, demonstrating the feasibility of identifying clinically significant disease while limiting unnecessary investigations.(Auvinen et al., 2024) Although longer follow-up is required to establish the mortality benefits of these newer approaches, they still involve the use of PSA to initially identify higher risk individuals who then go on to receive further testing and urologic care similar to the current pathway in Canada following a positive PSA.
Guideline recommendations have gradually evolved alongside this accumulating evidence. The 2018 United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendation moved away from its previous opposition, advocating individualized decision-making for men aged 55–69 years.(US Preventive Services Task Force, 2018) More recently, the American Urological Association and Society of Urologic Oncology have strongly emphasized the role of PSA-based screening, recommending regular screening for men aged 50–69 years, with earlier screening for individuals at increased risk.(Lin et al., 2026) The Canadian Urological Association 2022 guideline similarly recommends offering PSA screening from ages 50-69 with earlier screening starting at 45 for those who are higher risk, emphasizing shared decision-making regarding the potential benefits and harms of screening.(Mason et al., 2022) Nevertheless, recommendations remain inconsistent across organizations, with the Canadian Preventative Health Task Force continuing to recommend against routine PSA screening. This ongoing disagreement reinforces the importance of educating medical trainees on the interpretation of evolving evidence surrounding screening practices rather than relying exclusively on simplified interpretations of one screening guideline or the other.
In clinical practice, PSA screening should be viewed as a sequential, patient-centred process rather than a single blood test that automatically leads to invasive investigations. When an initial PSA is elevated, a repeat measurement, generally separated by at least one month, is obtained to confirm the abnormality before proceeding with further investigations.(Mason et al., 2022) This is important because PSA can fluctuate due to benign prostatic enlargement, inflammation, infection, and other non-malignant factors. If the elevation persists, subsequent investigations are guided by individual risk, PSA values, age, family history, comorbidities, and patient preferences. Prostate MRI can help identify suspicious lesions and guide targeted biopsy when indicated. Importantly, neither MRI nor prostate biopsy should be considered an automatic consequence of an elevated PSA. Each step involves an informed discussion between the patient and urologist regarding the potential benefits, limitations, and risks of further investigation. This approach allows clinicians to maintain the potential benefits of early detection while minimizing unnecessary procedures and treatment-related morbidity.
The importance of revisiting PSA screening is particularly relevant in the Canadian system, where rates of advanced prostate cancer have increased in recent years. A 2025 population-based analysis of Canadian cancer registry data demonstrated that stage IV prostate cancer incidence increased between 2010 and 2017 across all age groups, with an annual increase of 3.7% among men aged 50–74 years.(Wilkinson et al., 2025) Although these trends cannot establish a causal relationship between reduced screening and increased metastatic disease, they raise important concerns regarding delayed diagnosis and missed opportunities for early intervention.
Ultimately, the objective of prostate cancer screening should not be to diagnose every prostate malignancy, but rather to identify clinically significant disease at a stage when curative treatment remains possible. As the evidence supporting PSA screening continues to mature, it is important that medical education evolves accordingly. Medical trainees should recognize both the historical limitations of PSA screening and its demonstrated mortality benefits. Encouraging informed discussions about PSA screening in routine clinical practice, rather than discouraging testing outright, may help address the increasing burden of advanced prostate cancer and improve opportunities for early diagnosis.
References
Andriole, G. L., Crawford, E. D., Grubb, R. L., Buys, S. S., Chia, D., Church, T. R., Fouad, M. N., Gelmann, E. P., Kvale, P. A., Reding, D. J., Weissfeld, J. L., Yokochi, L. A., O’Brien, B., Clapp, J. D., Rathmell, J. M., Riley, T. L., Hayes, R. B., Kramer, B. S., Izmirlian, G., … PLCO Project Team. (2009). Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. The New England Journal of Medicine, 360(13), 1310–1319. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0810696
Auvinen, A., Tammela, T. L. J., Mirtti, T., Lilja, H., Tolonen, T., Kenttämies, A., Rinta-Kiikka, I., Lehtimäki, T., Natunen, K., Nevalainen, J., Raitanen, J., Ronkainen, J., van der Kwast, T., Riikonen, J., Pétas, A., Matikainen, M., Taari, K., Kilpeläinen, T., Rannikko, A. S., & ProScreen Trial Investigators. (2024). Prostate Cancer Screening With PSA, Kallikrein Panel, and MRI: The ProScreen Randomized Trial. JAMA, 331(17), 1452–1459. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.3841
Chiu, H.-M., Jen, G. H.-H., Wang, Y.-W., Fann, J. C.-Y., Hsu, C.-Y., Jeng, Y.-C., Yen, A. M.-F., Chiu, S. Y.-H., Chen, S. L.-S., Hsu, W.-F., Lee, Y.-C., Wu, M.-S., Wu, C.-Y., Jou, Y.-Y., & Chen, T. H.-H. (2021). Long-term effectiveness of faecal immunochemical test screening for proximal and distal colorectal cancers. Gut, 70(12), 2321–2329. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322545
Doubeni, C. A., Corley, D. A., Jensen, C. D., Levin, T. R., Ghai, N. R., Cannavale, K., Zhao, W. K., Selby, K., Buckner-Petty, S., Zauber, A. G., Fletcher, R. H., Weiss, N. S., & Schottinger, J. E. (2024). Fecal Immunochemical Test Screening and Risk of Colorectal Cancer Death. JAMA Network Open, 7(7), e2423671. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.23671
Frånlund, M., Månsson, M., Godtman, R. A., Aus, G., Holmberg, E., Kollberg, K. S., Lodding, P., Pihl, C.-G., Stranne, J., Lilja, H., & Hugosson, J. (2022). Results from 22 years of Followup in the Göteborg Randomized Population-Based Prostate Cancer Screening Trial. The Journal of Urology, 208(2), 292–300. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002696
Hugosson, J., Carlsson, S., Aus, G., Bergdahl, S., Khatami, A., Lodding, P., Pihl, C.-G., Stranne, J., Holmberg, E., & Lilja, H. (2010). Mortality results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. The Lancet. Oncology, 11(8), 725–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70146-7
Hugosson, J., Månsson, M., Wallström, J., Axcrona, U., Carlsson, S. V., Egevad, L., Geterud, K., Khatami, A., Kohestani, K., Pihl, C.-G., Socratous, A., Stranne, J., Godtman, R. A., Hellström, M., & GÖTEBORG-2 Trial Investigators. (2022). Prostate Cancer Screening with PSA and MRI Followed by Targeted Biopsy Only. The New England Journal of Medicine, 387(23), 2126–2137. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2209454
Klarenbach, S., Sims-Jones, N., Lewin, G., Singh, H., Thériault, G., Tonelli, M., Doull, M., Courage, S., Garcia, A. J., Thombs, B. D., & Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. (2018). Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-74 years who are not at increased risk for breast cancer. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal = Journal de l’Association Medicale Canadienne, 190(49), E1441–E1451. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.180463
Lin, D. W., Carlsson, S., Filson, C. P., Kim, S. K., Kirkby, E., Konety, B. R., Purysko, A. S., & Souter, L. H. (2026). Updates to Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline (2026). The Journal of Urology, 215(5), 491–501. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000004995
Martin, R. M., Turner, E. L., Young, G. J., Metcalfe, C., Walsh, E. I., Lane, J. A., Sterne, J. A. C., Noble, S., Holding, P., Ben-Shlomo, Y., Williams, N. J., Pashayan, N., Bui, M. N., Albertsen, P. C., Seibert, T. M., Zietman, A. L., Oxley, J., Adolfsson, J., Mason, M. D., … CAP Trial Group. (2024). Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening and 15-Year Prostate Cancer Mortality: A Secondary Analysis of the CAP Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 331(17), 1460–1470. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.4011
Mason, R. J., Marzouk, K., Finelli, A., Saad, F., So, A. I., Violette, P. D., Breau, R. H., & Rendon, R. A. (2022). UPDATE - 2022 Canadian Urological Association recommendations on prostate cancer screening and early diagnosis Endorsement of the 2021 Cancer Care Ontario guidelines on prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Canadian Urological Association Journal = Journal De l’Association Des Urologues Du Canada, 16(4), E184–E196. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.7851
Moyer, V. A. & U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2012). Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 157(2), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00459
Roobol, M. J., de Vos, I. I., Månsson, M., Godtman, R. A., Talala, K. M., den Hond, E., Nelen, V., Villers, A., Poinas, G., Kwiatkowski, M., Wyler, S., Recker, F., Puliti, D., Gorini, G., Zappa, M., Paez, A., Lujan, M., Bangma, C. H., Tammela, T., … ERSPC Investigators. (2025). European Study of Prostate Cancer Screening—23-Year Follow-up. The New England Journal of Medicine, 393(17), 1669–1680. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2503223
Schröder, F. H., Hugosson, J., Roobol, M. J., Tammela, T. L. J., Ciatto, S., Nelen, V., Kwiatkowski, M., Lujan, M., Lilja, H., Zappa, M., Denis, L. J., Recker, F., Berenguer, A., Määttänen, L., Bangma, C. H., Aus, G., Villers, A., Rebillard, X., van der Kwast, T., … ERSPC Investigators. (2009). Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. The New England Journal of Medicine, 360(13), 1320–1328. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0810084
US Preventive Services Task Force. (2018). Screening for Prostate Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA, 319(18), 1901–1913. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.3710
Wilkinson, A. N., Ellison, L. F., Zhang, S. X., Ong, M., Morgan, S. C., Goldenberg, S. L., Breau, R. H., & Morash, C. (2025). Canadian Prostate Cancer Trends in the Context of PSA Screening Guideline Changes. Current Oncology, 32(12), 669. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol32120669
