It has been a year since the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) released its Grade D recommendation against routine prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in men. In wake of the anniversary, the American Urological Association (AUA) released its own guideline for the “Early Detection of Prostate Cancer” at its 2013 Annual Meeting, which is currently ongoing in San Diego. Although I’m not at the AUA annual meeting, from my condo outside Washington, the guideline seems to have positive buzz at #AUA13 on Twitter.
Long before I started medical school, I planned to enter politics and campaign for public office. My favorite class in high school was AP Government. My favorite high school memory is Virginia Boys State. For me, participation in a republic government was the highest calling in society. I started college as a political science major with letters of recommendation from my U.S. senator and state delegate.
Last Saturday I had distinct privilege of listening to Dr. Fritz Schröder (above) during a one-hour lecture on prostate cancer screening at the United Services University in Bethesda, Maryland.
Since the invention of the white coat, physicians have crammed its pockets with medical resources.
As the fourth week in July comes to a close, most prospective urology residency applicants are looking ahead to their first away rotation: the visiting “sub-internship.”
If you want to capture the pulse of American medicine, open the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). This month JAMA featured four Letters to the Editor with a sharp focus on prostate cancer-specific antigen (PSA) and prostate cancer. Last week I argued now is the time to dichotomize prostate cancer. JAMA understands we are approaching critical mass.
Much has been made of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) ”Grade D” recommendation against ”prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer.”  I’ve been logging the most recent comments from major news outlets on my Google Plus profile.
In the board game Go, two players alternate in placing either black or white stones on a crosshatch wood board. The object is to form a pattern that surrounds the opponent. The game can involve dozens of stones in harmony between defense and counter-attack. Toward the end of a game, the Go board may appear as nothing more than an arbitrary array of black and white stones with sparse glimpses of wood for remaining play. This is the critical point in the game. To win, a player must find a cohesive pattern amidst the seemingly random.