Optimal Starting Age and Baseline Level for Repeat Tests: Economic Concerns of PSA Screening for Chinese Men - 10-Year Experience of a Single Center.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the optimal age for the baseline serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test and for repeat screening and its economic burden in a single center in China. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 35,533 men with PSA screening were retrospectively enrolled in this study. Follow-ups were conducted in 1,586 men with PSA >4 ng/mL, and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were employed to investigate the optimal cutoffs. RESULTS: ROC analysis indicated that the optimal age for initial PSA screening was 57.5 years (AUC = 0.84), 62.5 years (AUC = 0.902), 60.5 years (AUC = 0.909), and 61.5 years (AUC = 0.890) for individuals with PSA >4 and >10 ng/mL, a diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa), and clinically significant PCa defined as the focus events, respectively. For Chinese men aged 50-59, 60-69, and >70 years, the initial PSA levels of 1.305 ng/mL (AUC = 0.699), 1.975 ng/mL (AUC = 0.711), and 2.740 ng/mL (AUC = 0.720) might have a PSA velocity >0.75 ng/mL per year during the follow-up. In addition, the total cost amounts to CNY 13,609,260 in these cases, but only 60 of the 35,533 (0.17%) men gained benefit from PSA screening. CONCLUSION: In our opinion, the optimal starting age for initial PSA testing was 57.5 years. The necessity for repeat screening should be based on the first PSA level depending on age. A cost--benefit analysis should be included in population-based screening.

Don't trick me: An event-related potentials investigation of how price deception decreases consumer purchase intention.

As a kind of information deception, price deception is adopted by some online sellers as an approach to mislead the consumers into buying their products. However, when consumers have sufficient knowledge about the price information, the effect of price deception on their purchase decision making remains elusive. Therefore, behavioural and event-related potentials measures were combined to investigate this issue. Behaviourally, a higher purchase rate and reduced reaction time were observed in the truthful condition relative to the deceptive condition, suggesting that the truthful condition was more favourable to the participants. At the neural level, the truthful condition triggered an attenuated N2 and an increased LPP compared with the deceptive condition, indicating less cognitive and decisional conflict and more positive evaluation of the truthful condition. Taken together, these results revealed the negative impact of price deception on purchase decision making and its potential neural substrates.