FAQ
Questions for doctors and interested parties:
How accurate are the protexam tests?


How large were the test groups in each study?


Is it possible to classify the tests as screening tests?


If screening cannot be carried out, how is the selection carried out (criteria) and who informs the insured and advises them after a positive/negative test result?


Is it possible to make a statement regarding the latency at the time of clinical manifestation of the target disease without changing the lifestyle (including medication) for the individual diseases?

No, that is not what the tests were developed for.

How can the body’s ability to repair itself be assessed for individual target diseases (in which situation is “ultra-early therapy” already too much therapy)?

When it comes to malignant prostate cancer, not all cancers are fatal and dangerous. Even not all "malignant" prostate cancers are the same. Some can grow quickly, while others grow very slowly. Some men with slow-growing prostate cancer (especially older men or those with other serious health problems) may never require treatment. Instead, reflective urologists recommend active surveillance or observation (sometimes called "watchful waiting"). In this case, the proteomic test is used to noninvasively monitor the tumor.

Are there treatment options or individualized drug therapy?


Is follow-up with repeated proteomic analysis necessary after “ultra-early therapy”, or are further/other follow-up models recommended?

If a protexam test result is positive, monitoring according to clinical guidelines is required prior to surveillance biopsy within one year of positive diagnosis.

Does the test have to be repeated after a negative protexam test result?

Similar to the classic preventive examination, a check-up should be carried out regularly every 2-3 years.

Is proteomic analysis used in Germany?


Are the tests used in other countries?


The new treatment path according to the results of the ProtecT study:
Share by: