There is some research looking for genetic factors, protein or other distinctive markers that can help with detection and treatment selection for different types if prostate cancers.
Considering that prostate cancer is second only to lung cancer for number of deaths for men, the amount and the quality of the research on prostate cancer is surprisingly low. Even the statistics are misleading, particularly those driving the current recommendation.
In the US, 1 in 6 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer. For comparison, 1 in 8 women are diagnosed with breast cancer. Since prostate cancers are more likely to remain contained within the prostate for some years with low probability at first of spreading, this distorts making decisions based on 5-year survival rates.
Before early detection through PSA screening, survival rates were low -- typically 20% 5-year. It was too late, already spreading to bones, painful and horrible.
Policy makers often cite age when detected and 5-year survival rates to justify "they will die from something else" (the WITH vs FROM discussion). Unfortunately, the major studies they base this upon are fatally flawed.
The study most cited to compare outcomes with and without routine PSA screening actually compared no such thing. It compared a group receiving annual PSA screening with a so-called control group who were screened based on current practice and their own decisions. This group received high levels of PSA screening comparable or slightly higher than current practice in the US!!
There is some promising research, but it is years from being available as diagnostics or as treatments.
= new reply since forum marked as read