[glenstein]

May I ask how this was discovered in your dad's case? I feel like prostate cancer is the single most dangerous cancer for men in the late 30s, 40s, and 50s. So it's a subject I'm trying to pay attention to.

[Antipodes456]

He had a change in PSA levels in his blood - it's a good idea to get your bloods checked annually so you can pick up any changes, as PSA levels vary a lot person to person.

Also gan get "the finger" to see if you have an enlarged prostate.

I think as far as cancers go, prostate is one of the better ones to get, not normally aggressive, you'll probably die before it kills you.

Test often if you have family history.

[haldujai]

No way, colorectal and lung (even if you're a non-smoker, worse prognosis) are both relatively very common and will kill you quickly.

We're seeing a lot of early presentations in both contributing to the lower screening start by the USPTF, evidence still coming in on lung and what to do.

[hlehmann]

I was diagnosed with prostate cancer when I was about 57. I had had somewhat regular "finger up the butt" exams prior to that, since I was about 45, which were all negative. Then a PSA blood test test came back positive and I then had a biopsy done (no fun, trust me). Because I was still in my 50's I needed to do something beyond just continuing to monitor it. Between radiation treatment and a prostatectomy I chose the latter. Eight years or so later my PSA tests are still negative, knock on wood. Lesson learned, I think, is to get a simple PSA blood test done regularly once you've reached a certain age.

[haldujai]

I don't think you can conclude that from one patient, that's not how medicine works.

Whether to actively surveil vs treat depends on individual patient characteristics and grade (generally Gleason 7+) and the fact that you didn't have a complication does not mean they're not sufficiently high. On a population level analysis the evidence clearly support that there is no improved mortality with prostate cancer screening.