Ex-President Joe Biden’s late-stage cancer diagnosis has thrust forth a debate revolving around the PSA (prostate-specific antigen) testing methodology for prostate cancer along with presidential politics. To comprehend the gravity of this relationship, Americans demand comprehensive knowledge regarding PSA testing and an authentic debate on the controversial choices that were made in the PSA screening process for Biden.
The prostate, an organ resembling a walnut situated right at the base of the bladder, is responsible for producing ‘prostate specific antigen,’ or PSA. This mixture of sugar and protein can leak into the bloodstream, allowing doctors to measure it through standard blood tests. Unfortunately, an elderly man’s prostate naturally enlarges, leading to an increased flow of PSA.
Preventative tests rely on the assumption that malignant prostate tumors usually secrete more PSA than healthy tissue. Thus, if a man’s prostate cancer develops, his PSA levels tend to rise quite rapidly. However, an escalated amount of PSA doesn’t necessarily equate to deadly cancer. In many cases, grey-haired gentlemen with spiked PSA levels merely have benign prostate enlargement.
Further complicating the diagnosis, some men with prostate cancer have a type of the disease that is slow and mild and therefore doesn’t necessitate medical intervention. These men end up sharing their lives with the illness, not perishing from it. This reality resulted in the creation of the proverb stating that prostate cancer is a long-lived pontiff’s or judges’ ailment.
The reason why medical consultants often greet PSA screening with doubt is due to the difficulties in separating harmless PSA elevations from those indicating a more sinister prospect of cancer. To confirm cancer, one has to undertake prostate biopsies, which are undoubtedly painful and could lead to side effects.
Following a diagnosis, patients, who otherwise could have lived harmoniously with their disease, may find themselves needlessly exposed to the dangers of treatments, like radiation and surgery. To make matters worse, the benefits of early intervention for prostate cancer are challenging to confirm via clinical examinations. Hence, advisors discourage widespread testing or advocate for an intricate approach involving a comprehensive discussion about risks and benefits between doctors and their patients.
However, the tide seems to have turned towards more frequent PSA testing recently. This shift is in part due to advances in radiographic imaging like MRI, which now enable ‘active surveillance.’ With this approach, physicians can track early anomalies for signs of proliferation, helping them distinguish between harmless prostate cancers and those likely to progress into something more lethal. As a result, targeted interventions can be planned for those at the highest risk.
In my practice, I’ve always leaned favorably towards early prostate cancer detection despite the uproar around its clinical benefits. From what I have witnessed, early diagnosis does have a positive impact on a patient’s prognosis. Independent of improved health outcomes, patients and their relatives get an opportunity to plan, reducing the shock of an unexpected advanced-stage disease.
Regarding Biden’s case, a statement was made public on May 20, which revealed that no PSA test had been administered since 2014 when Biden was serving as vice president. The rationale behind this decision remains a mystery. Such a choice might have been a calculated move, considering the ongoing debates about the pros and cons of PSA testing. Nevertheless, given the critical role of a vice-president’s health, it’s conjectured that physicians would have preferred to have more information at hand.
The lack of further screening is a glaring omission and provokes speculation about whether the political fallout of a borderline or escalating PSA trajectory influenced this decision. Additional data related to his last PSA test and the reasoning behind discontinuing screening would quell such conjectures.
Monumental medical conditions of the nation’s leaders have, in the past, offered the public a chance to delve into important health challenges. Increased discussion about colon cancer screening ensued after President Reagan’s diagnosis in 1985.
A transparent approach to managing Biden’s condition would be in the public’s favor, raising awareness and understanding of the nuanced healthcare decisions with which many men grapple. While it’s easy to assign blame after the fact, this situation should serve as a sobering reminder that the decisions around health screenings for high-level officials should always prioritize their health over political considerations.
The post Biden’s Negligent Cancer Diagnosis: A Mystery Left Unexplained appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
