Prostate Cancer Surgeon Reveals Why He Refuses Screening Despite His Own Diagnosis

A cancer surgeon diagnosed with prostate cancer has cautioned against routine screening, citing the high risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Writing for The Times on June 7, 2026, the physician argues that many prostate tumors are slow-growing and would never become fatal, yet screening often leads to life-altering treatments that diminish quality of life.

The surgeon’s perspective highlights a central tension in modern oncology: the difference between finding a cancer and finding a cancer that actually threatens a patient’s life. While the goal of screening is early detection, the physician notes that prostate cancer frequently behaves as an indolent disease that may never progress to a symptomatic or lethal stage.

This professional conflict is compounded by the surgeon’s own diagnosis. Despite their expertise in treating the disease, the surgeon maintains that the systemic push for widespread screening can do more harm than good for the average man.

The debate centers largely on the use of the Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) test, a blood test that measures a protein produced by the prostate gland. While a high PSA level can indicate cancer, it can also be raised by non-cancerous conditions, such as an enlarged prostate or infection.

Why does a cancer surgeon oppose prostate cancer screening?

The primary concern is overdiagnosis. According to the reporting in The Times, the surgeon argues that screening identifies many tumors that are clinically insignificant. These are cancers that would have remained dormant or grown so slowly that the patient would have died of other causes long before the cancer became a problem.

Once a cancer is detected via screening, the pressure to treat it is immense. The surgeon points out that treatments—including radical prostatectomy (surgical removal of the prostate) and radiation therapy—carry significant risks. These include permanent urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction.

For a patient with a slow-growing tumor, these treatments represent a trade-off where the “cure” causes more disability than the disease ever would have. The surgeon’s stance is that for many men, the psychological burden of knowing they have a “cancer” leads to aggressive interventions that permanently lower their quality of life without extending it.

What is the risk of overdiagnosis in prostate cancer?

Overdiagnosis occurs when a screen-detected cancer would never have caused symptoms or death during the patient’s lifetime. This is a documented challenge in prostate cancer because the disease varies wildly in aggressiveness.

The surgeon explains that the medical community often struggles to distinguish between a lethal tumor and a harmless one at the time of diagnosis. This uncertainty often pushes clinicians toward “better safe than sorry” treatments.

This approach contrasts with “active surveillance,” a strategy where low-risk cancers are monitored closely with regular tests but not treated unless there is clear evidence of growth or spread. The surgeon suggests that a shift toward surveillance, rather than immediate intervention, is more aligned with patient well-being.

How is prostate cancer currently screened and managed?

Current management typically begins with the PSA test. If levels are elevated, doctors may follow up with a digital rectal exam (DRE) or imaging, such as an MRI, before proceeding to a biopsy to confirm the presence of malignancy.

Medical guidelines vary by region and organization. Some health bodies recommend shared decision-making, where a doctor explains the pros and cons of screening to the patient, allowing the individual to decide based on their own values and risk tolerance. This approach acknowledges that the “correct” choice depends on whether a patient prioritizes the absolute removal of cancer or the preservation of sexual and urinary function.

The surgeon’s account in The Times serves as a reminder that medical expertise does not always lead to a desire for more intervention. Even for those who spend their careers removing tumors, the reality of living with a slow-growing cancer can be preferable to the consequences of the treatment designed to eliminate it.

The surgeon concludes that screening should not be a default mandate but a nuanced conversation. The goal, in their view, is not to find every single cancer cell, but to avoid treating patients who don’t actually need it.