The dilemmas of prostate cancer screening

In reply: We thank Lawrentschuk and colleagues for the critical response. We would like to respond to several wrong assertions:

1 Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD.
2 Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Red Book Committee, Melbourne, VIC.

Correspondence: cdelmar@bond.edu.au

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

* On behalf of Del Mar CB, Glasziou PP, Hirst GH, Wright RG, Hoffmann TC.

1. Higgins JPT, Green SE. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed Oct 2013).
2. Del Mar CB, Glasziou PP, Hirst GH, et al. Should we screen for prostate cancer? A re-examination of the evidence. Med J Aust 2013; 198: 525-527. <MJA full text>
3. Bergman J, Litwin MS. Quality of life in men undergoing active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2012; 2012: 242-249.
4. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 203-213.
5. Hayes JH, Ollendorf DA, Pearson SD, et al. Observation versus initial treatment for men with localized, low-risk prostate cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158: 853-860.
6. Yin M, Bastacky S, Chandran U, et al. Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer in the general population: a study of healthy organ donors. J Urol 2008; 179: 892-895; discussion 895.
7. Sakr WA, Haas GP, Cassin BF, et al. The frequency of carcinoma and intraepithelial neoplasia of the prostate in young male patients. J Urol 1993; 150: 379-385.
8. Haas GP, Delongchamps N, Brawley OW, et al. The worldwide epidemiology of prostate cancer: perspectives from autopsy studies. Can J Urol 2008; 15: 3866-3871.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.