Dismantling the Culture of Ambivalence: Reframing Prostate Cancer Awareness and Access

Abstract

Background: Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death among men in the United States. Despite this, cultural ambivalence, systemic inequities, and inconsistent medical practices hinder effective prevention.

Objective: To examine historical and structural determinants of men’s disengagement with preventive care, critique prevailing narratives about PSA testing, and highlight pathways for policy and practice reform.

Discussion: Preventive care for men has been shaped by structural inequities in health insurance, socioeconomic barriers, and cultural attitudes that downplay risk. Critiques of PSA testing, along with recommendations that extend intervals between screenings, have contributed to delayed diagnoses. Evidence shows that PSA screening, particularly when paired with modern diagnostic refinements, reduces mortality. Provider-level biases, including institutional incentives to retain treatment in-house, further undermine patient-centered care.

Introduction

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death among men in the United States (American Cancer Society, 2024). Yet cultural attitudes, systemic inequities, and inconsistent medical practices continue to impede preventive healthcare. Historically, medical treatment was accessed primarily in times of crisis, and preventive medicine was not part of common practice (Rosen, 2015).

Despite advances in diagnostics and therapeutics, prevailing narratives around prostate cancer screening, particularly criticisms of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, have contributed to ambivalence and delayed detection. The need is not simply for improved tools but for a cultural and systemic realignment that embraces early detection as a pragmatic necessity.

Anton Allensworth, director of The Crowns Project, a 501(c)(3) all-volunteer nonprofit based in Kent, Ohio, states: “We need to reframe prostate cancer detection from a risk-based filter to a broad, equitable model that reaches all men.”

Historical and Structural Determinants of Ambivalence

The expansion of employer-sponsored health insurance in the mid-20th century improved access to care (Blumenthal, 2006), but benefits were unevenly distributed. Low-wage, temporary, and part-time workers often lacked coverage (Collins et al., 2022). Self-employed men who purchase insurance independently frequently face high premiums and fewer options, creating prohibitive costs for comprehensive coverage (KFF, 2023). For many, self-insurance becomes a gamble, where high deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses render preventive services inaccessible.

Medicaid eligibility has historically excluded non-disabled adults without dependent children, disproportionately affecting men (Buettgens et al., 2020). Even among those with coverage, the rise of high-deductible health plans has made preventive care appear discretionary rather than essential.

By contrast, women’s health has benefited from mandated coverage of preventive services such as mammograms and Pap smears under the Affordable Care Act (2010). This parity has normalized preventive care for women, while men continue to face a system that positions prostate cancer screening as optional. This policy imbalance reinforces cultural ambivalence.

Reframing the PSA Debate

The American Urological Association (AUA) recommends PSA testing every 2 to 4 years for men beginning at age 50, and earlier for high-risk groups (AUA, 2023). While intended to balance benefits and harms, such extended intervals risk missing aggressive cancers that can progress rapidly between screenings. This limitation exemplifies how guideline-driven caution, while protective in principle, may inadvertently delay detection in practice.

False Positives as Clinical Signals

Elevated PSA levels can result from benign conditions, but such outcomes should be viewed as signals for further evaluation rather than failures. Repeat testing, multiparametric MRI, and biomarker panels such as the 4Kscore refine diagnostic accuracy before biopsy is considered (Loeb et al., 2021).

False Negatives in Context

No screening tool is flawless. Mammography and colonoscopy also carry limitations, yet both remain standards because they save lives (USPSTF, 2021; Rex et al., 2017). PSA testing, when integrated with clinical judgment and secondary tools, enables detection of aggressive cancers early enough for curative treatment (Crawford et al., 2020).

Overdiagnosis versus Targeted Intervention

The assumption that most PSA-detected cancers are clinically insignificant is misleading. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) demonstrated a 20 percent reduction in prostate cancer mortality with PSA screening (Schröder et al., 2014). For high-risk populations, including men with family histories and carriers of BRCA mutations, early detection remains critical (NCCN, 2023).

Treatment Pathways: Beyond Outdated Paradigms

Arguments against PSA testing often conflate detection with the inevitability of radical intervention. This no longer reflects clinical practice. Active surveillance, hormone therapy, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and focal approaches such as high-intensity focused ultrasound and cryotherapy now provide less invasive management options (NCCN, 2023).

Conventional treatments such as prostatectomy or radiation therapy can result in complications, including urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. However, advances in technique and patient selection have reduced these risks (Mottet et al., 2020). More importantly, withholding testing to avoid these potential side effects disregards the fact that therapeutic options are greatest when cancer is detected early.

Cultural Attitudes and Perceptions

Men’s response to prostate cancer awareness campaigns is often shaped by cultural fatalism. Many treat calls for testing as a nuisance, assume cancer can be “fixed” if it develops based on seeing others treated, or view screening as a gamble against mortality. Such attitudes perpetuate delays in diagnosis and reduce engagement with available preventive services. In contrast, women’s health-seeking behaviors are reinforced through consistent preventive infrastructure and broader public acceptance of early detection as a norm.

Provider-Level Influences

Clinical decision-making is not always neutral. Providers affiliated with institutions that lack less invasive technologies may inadvertently skew patient choice toward treatments available in-house, retaining care within their network rather than guiding patients toward alternative facilities offering focal or novel therapies. These practices compromise shared decision-making and reinforce skepticism among men who already perceive preventive healthcare as uncertain or adversarial.

Toward Pragmatic Change

The current paradigm of “shared decision-making” in PSA testing, endorsed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the American Cancer Society, places disproportionate responsibility on the patient (USPSTF, 2018; ACS, 2022). Asking men to weigh complex trade-offs without fully transparent guidance reinforces cultural tendencies toward ambivalence. Instead, providers and policymakers should promote a default orientation toward offering the PSA test, paired with clear information about next steps and management pathways.

Organizations such as The Crowns Project illustrate how advocacy can bridge cultural and systemic divides. By embedding prostate health awareness into community spaces and fostering equity-driven messaging, The Crowns Project is advancing a pragmatic model of awareness and detection.

Conclusion

Dismantling the culture of ambivalence surrounding prostate cancer requires addressing systemic inequities, cultural fatalism, and provider-level practices that inhibit early detection.

Allensworth states that he projects upcoming generations, having grown more accustomed to consistent exposure to the healthcare system, will be more proactive than their predecessors if they are adequately informed. However, he emphasizes that such progress remains dependent on cultural acceptance and socioeconomic class. Therefore, legislation mandating annual PSA testing for men aged 50 and beyond is necessary. Such a policy would safeguard patients from variability in physician philosophy or institutional practice that may not align with timely, proactive care. It would also relieve men of the unreasonable expectation that they be sufficiently informed to navigate and decipher the complexities of screening guidelines on their own.

As Allensworth observes, reframing detection requires more than education; it requires a shift from risk-based stratification to inclusive, equitable models of care. For prostate cancer to be addressed with the seriousness it warrants, prevention must be normalized, access must be equitable, and healthcare delivery must align with the mission

References

• American Cancer Society. (2024). Cancer Facts & Figures 2024.

• American Urological Association (AUA). (2023). Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA guideline.

• Blumenthal, D. (2006). Employer-sponsored health insurance in the United States—Origins and implications. NEJM, 355(1), 82–88.

• Buettgens, M., et al. (2020). Who will be uninsured after the ACA? Urban Institute.

• Collins, S. R., et al. (2022). Health insurance coverage eight years after the ACA. The Commonwealth Fund.

• Crawford, E. D., et al. (2020). PSA screening: Balancing benefits and harms. Urology Practice, 7(5), 368–374.

• Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). (2023). Trends in individual market premiums.

• Loeb, S., et al. (2021). Prostate cancer screening: Navigating the controversies. Eur Urol, 79(4), 508–519.

• Mottet, N., et al. (2020). EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. European Urology, 79(2), 243–262.

• NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Prostate Cancer. Version 2.2023.

• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), 2010.

• Rex, D. K., et al. (2017). Colorectal cancer screening: Recommendations for physicians. Am J Gastroenterol, 112, 1016–1030.

• Rosen, G. (2015). A History of Public Health. Johns Hopkins University Press.

• Schröder, F. H., et al. (2014). Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. NEJM, 360, 1320–1328.

• U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). (2018). Screening for prostate cancer: Recommendation statement. JAMA, 319(18), 1901–1913.

• USPSTF. (2021). Breast cancer screening. JAMA, 325(16), 1713–1728.