Article

Public Survey and Survival Data Do Not Support Recommendations to Discontinue Prostate-specific Antigen Screening in Men at Age 75

Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States
Urology (Impact Factor: 2.13). 10/2009; 75(5):1122-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.06.091
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation to discontinue prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening at age 75.
Public survey: A cohort of 340 patients was surveyed at our PSA screening clinic and stratified by awareness of the recommendation and education level. Age (< 75, >or= 75), race, health insurance status, knowledge of prostate cancer, and opinion on screening discontinuation at age 75 was evaluated between groups. Disease risk and survival analysis: A cohort of 4196 men who underwent radical prostatectomy between 1988 and 2008 was stratified into age groups: < 65, 65-74, and >or= 75. Associations between clinicopathologic variables, disease risk, and survival were compared between age groups using univariate and multivariate analysis.
Approximately 78% of men surveyed disagreed with the USPSTF recommendation. The number of men who disagreed was not significantly different between awareness groups (P = .962). Awareness of new screening guidelines showed a significant difference (P = .006) between education groups. Age >or= 75 years was predictive of high-risk disease based on D'Amico's criteria (odds ratio = 2.72, P = .003). Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses showed an association of men aged >or= 75 years with higher rate of PSA recurrence, distant metastasis, and disease specific death compared with the age groups of < 65 and 65-74 (P <.05).
Men presenting to our PSA screening clinic disagreed with discontinuation of screening at age 75. Men aged >or= 75 years had higher risk disease and poorer survival. The USPSTF recommendation was supported neither by public opinion nor disease risk and survival results.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
73 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article presents an overview of the challenges that men encounter in making decisions about prostate cancer screening, including complex affective and cognitive factors and controversies in the interpretation of the evidence on prostate cancer screening. Shared decision making involving patient decision aids are discussed as approaches that can be used to improve the quality of prostate cancer screening decisions, including a close alignment between a man's values, goals, and preferences and his choice about screening.
    Urologic Clinics of North America 05/2014; 41(2):257-266. DOI:10.1016/j.ucl.2014.01.008 · 1.35 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 2008, the US Preventive Services Task Force updated its recommendations to discourage screening for prostate cancer in men over 75 and for colorectal cancer in adults over 85. We aimed to determine whether newspapers portrayed these screenings differently after these recommendation changes. A quantitative content analysis included articles on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing or colonoscopy in US newspapers from 2005 to 2012. Outcomes included the number of benefits and harms mentioned and the gist expert and lay readers might get from articles. Benefits in PSA articles (n = 222) and harms and benefits in colonoscopy articles (n = 65) did not change over time. Mentions of PSA harms increased after 2008 (p < .01). Expected expert gist of PSA articles became more negative after 2008 (p < .01). Expected lay gist was positive and did not change. News coverage of PSA testing harms increased without a decrease in the discussion of benefits. Consumers, especially lay consumers, are receiving unbalanced information on cancer screening.
    Journal of Behavioral Medicine 05/2014; 37(6). DOI:10.1007/s10865-014-9572-7 · 3.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE To survey patient opinions on prostate cancer (PCa) screening in light of the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendation against its use. METHODS We conducted a survey of all-comers to urology and primary care clinics. Participants provided demographic information and responded to a 5-item questionnaire regarding their opinions on screening before and after reading opposing position statements. RESULTS The overall response rate was 48%. After excluding incomplete questionnaires, 54 surveys were available for analysis. Patients were predominantly white, middle-aged and older, college-ducated men with middle-to-upper-middle-class incomes who were seen at urology clinics. Patients rated their "pre" level of understanding of screening recommendations as good or very good (52%), okay (30%), and poor (19%). After reading the information sheets, good or very good understanding of screening recommendations improved (65%; P = .05), and agreement with the importance of screening remained high (80%). However, nearly 20% of patients expressed a more neutral or less favorable attitude toward the risk-benefit ratio of screening (P = .09). Agreement that men should undergo screening, that screening helps detect cancer, and that screening saves lives remained high, regardless of the exposure. CONCLUSION Overall, patients favor PCa screening, but heightened awareness of the current controversy raises concerns about its potential harms. PCa screening is a complex issue, and insight into changing public opinion will be crucial to our future discussions with patients who are wrestling with the decision whether to undergo screening. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc.
    Urology 06/2014; 84(2). DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2014.04.026 · 2.13 Impact Factor