To the Editor The slogan “Less Is More” has an Orwellian ring to it, especially as government committees usurp the individualized decision making of clinicians. The recent editorial by Katz1 seems to imply that when a healthy 68-year-old man asks me to order a screening prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for him, I should instead offer him an end-of-life discussion. I cannot apply results from a PSA study done on a Department of Veterans Affairs population, notorious for high rates of smoking and other bad habits, to my well-educated and health-conscious seniors who eat right, exercise, and stopped smoking in 1963. Because of their adherence to a heart-healthy lifestyle, my seniors have a longer life expectancy to protect, altering the balance of benefits and risks compared with other populations.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Keller DL. Why I Will Continue to Screen Prostate-Specific Antigen for Myself and Other Appropriate Men. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(1):164. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.11106
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: