Exploring predictors of and barriers to online prostate cancer community use: A cross‐sectional survey of users and non‐users

e16046 Background: Advanced prostate cancer often leads to the development of BM and as a result SREs. Treatment and management of SREs, as well as the underlying disease, influences the patient’s HRQoL and HRU. We evaluated the impact of SREs on HRQoL (FACT-P) and HRU in patients with BM. Methods: Data were extracted from the Adelphi Prostate Cancer Disease-Specific Programme (DSP), a cross-sectional survey of 150 urologists and oncologists and their prostate cancer patients conducted from March to June 2012 in the US. Each specialist completed comprehensive record forms on 12 of their patients being treated for prostate cancer. Patients were invited to complete a questionnaire, which included the FACT-P HRQoL instrument. Patients were stratified by SRE experience to assess the impact of SRE on patients with BM. SRE was defined as an event of bone radiation, bone surgery, fracture, or spinal cord compression. Results: Data were collected from 1,749 prostate cancer patients, of which 941 were identified with BM; SRE status was recorded in 499 BM patients (Table). HRQoL was significantly lower in patients experiencing SREs, while the rate of consultations and likelihood of being hospitalized was significantly higher. Conclusions: SREs result in a significant economic burden on the healthcare system and negative impact on HRQoL in prostate cancer patients with BM. [Table: see text]

Download Full-text

PS3-14: Primary Care Providers Reported Use of Pre-Screening Discussions for Prostate Cancer Screening: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Clinical Medicine & Research ◽

10.3121/cmr.2010.943.ps3-14 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 8 (3-4) ◽

pp. 195-196

Author(s):

M. Gunter ◽

A. Von Worley ◽

H. Davis ◽

S. Carter ◽

L. Scholl ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Primary Care ◽

Cancer Screening ◽

Prostate Cancer Screening ◽

Primary Care Providers ◽

Care Providers ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional

Download Full-text

Individual prostate cancer screening: Practice survey with general practitioner of Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of Congo

Current Cancer Reports ◽

10.25082/ccr.2021.01.004 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

pp. 95-100

Author(s):

Pitchou Mukaz Mbey ◽

◽

Dieudonné Moliwa Moningo ◽

Augustin Kibonge Mukala ◽

Patrick Zihalirwa Ciza ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Democratic Republic Of Congo ◽

Prostate Cancer Screening ◽

Digital Rectal Examination ◽

Participation Rate ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Screening Practice ◽

Psa Testing ◽

Learned Societies

Objective: To analyze the practices of general practitioners (GPs) in terms of recommendations on individual screening for prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: An anonymous cross-sectional survey using a pre-established questionnaire was conducted among 193 GPs in the city of Lubumbashi from May 1st to July 31st, 2020. The questionnaire included three parts: identity criteria of GPs, screening practice and the opinion of GPs on the recommendations. Results: The participation rate was 79%. Eighty-two-point nine percent of respondents said they offered screening for PCa; 42.5% of them said they offered this screening to all men within a certain age limit, ranging between 50 to 75 years in 38.8% of the cases. Only 12.5% of GPs provided complete prior information to their patients. Thirty-six-point three percent of GPs reported combining digital rectal examination with total PSA testing, but in the presence of an abnormality, 60.6% reported that they referred their patients directly to the urologist without ordering other additional investigations (first or second line). Finally, 32.7% of GPs found that the recommendations disseminated were appropriate for their practice. Conclusion: Individual screening for PCa is widely proposed; but there are differences between the practices reported by GPs and official recommendations of learned societies. Our study highlights the need to popularize the recommendations of learned societies to GPs.

Download Full-text

Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics among men with metastatic prostate cancer: An aged-stratified analysis.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2012.30.5_suppl.256 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 30 (5_suppl) ◽

pp. 256-256

Author(s):

Jamie Forlenza ◽

Mekre Senbetta ◽

Amy Smalarz ◽

Kimberly Riggs

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Clinical Characteristics ◽

Metastatic Prostate Cancer ◽

Bone Fractures ◽

Cord Compression ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Annual Household Income ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Source Of Care ◽

Time Since Diagnosis

256 Background: Data on age-specific comparisons in metastatic prostate cancer (MPC) is limited. This analysis evaluated socio-demographic and clinical characteristics among men with MPC aged <65 years versus ≥65 years. Methods: Eighty-four US men aged ≥18 years with self-reported MPC completed a cross-sectional survey in January-February 2011 which collected data on socio-demographic and clinical characteristics including treatment history and source of care. Results: Forty-nine men were aged <65 years; 35 men were ≥65 years. There were no differences (all P>0.05) between groups for marital status (80% of those <65 years and 83% of those ≥65 years were married), race/ethnicity (94% of both groups were white), education (88% of those <65 years and 77% of those ≥65 years had attended college), and annual household income (29% of those <65 years and 31% of those ≥65 years had incomes of $35,000-$54,999). Time since diagnosis differed between groups with 12%, 84%, and 4% of those aged <65 years and 3%, 69%, and 29% of those aged ≥65 years having been diagnosed <1, 1-9, and ≥10 year(s) ago, respectively (P<0.001). Respondents aged <65 years and ≥65 years reported similar experience with chemotherapy (37% in both groups had received chemotherapy), no anemia in last 4 weeks (80% and 83%, respectively), no bone fractures or spinal cord compression in last 4 weeks (90% and 94%, respectively), receiving previous radiation therapy (69% and 66%, respectively), receiving previous surgery (63% and 66%, respectively), and utilizing hormonal treatments previously or currently (86% and 90%, respectively) (all P>0.05). In addition, those <65 years versus ≥65 years did not differ regarding their self-reported source of primary care for prostate cancer (51% and 54% reported receiving their care from oncologists, respectively; 47% and 43% from urologists; 2% and 3% from family physicians/internists). Conclusions: In this study of men with MPC, those aged <65 years and those ≥65 years reported similar prostate cancer treatment utilization as well as socio-demographic and clinical characteristics with the exception of a difference in time since diagnosis. Further research in larger populations is warranted.

Download Full-text

Do you recommend cancer screening to your patients? A cross-sectional study of Norwegian doctors

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029739 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (8) ◽

pp. e029739

Author(s):

Berit Bringedal ◽

Atle Fretheim ◽

Stein Nilsen ◽

Karin Isaksson Rø

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Cancer Screening ◽

Binary Logistic Regression ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Postal Questionnaire ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

National Guidelines ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Breast And Prostate Cancer

ObjectiveGuidelines for cancer screening have been debated and are followed to varying degrees. We wanted to study whether and why doctors recommend disease-specific cancer screening to their patients.DesignOur cross-sectional survey used a postal questionnaire. The data were examined with descriptive methods and binary logistic regression.SettingWe surveyed doctors working in all health services.ParticipantsOur participants comprised a representative sample of Norwegian doctors in 2014/2015.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome is whether doctors reported recommending their patients get screening for cancers of the breast, colorectum, lung, prostate, cervix and ovaries. We examined doctors’ characteristics predicting adherence to the guidelines, including gender, age, and work in specialist or general practice. The secondary outcomes are reasons given for recommending or not recommending screening for breast and prostate cancer.ResultsOur response rate was 75% (1158 of 1545). 94% recommended screening for cervical cancer, 89% for breast cancer (both established as national programmes), 42% for colorectal cancer (upcoming national programme), 41% for prostate cancer, 21% for ovarian cancer and 17% for lung cancer (not recommended by health authorities). General practitioners (GPs) adhered to guidelines more than other doctors. Early detection was the most frequent reason for recommending screening; false positives and needless intervention were the most frequent reasons for not recommending it.ConclusionsA large majority of doctors claimed that they recommended cancer screening in accordance with national guidelines. Among doctors recommending screening contrary to the guidelines, GPs did so to a lesser degree than other specialties. Different expectations of doctors’ roles could be a possible explanation for the variations in practice and justifications. The effectiveness of governing instruments, such as guidelines, incentives or reporting measures, can depend on which professional role(s) a doctor is loyal to, and policymakers should be aware of these different roles in clinical governance.

Download Full-text

Prostate cancer screening practices of African-American and non-African-American US primary care physicians: a cross-sectional survey

International Journal of General Medicine ◽

10.2147/ijgm.s36028 ◽

2012 ◽

pp. 775 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Thomas Richards ◽

Rim ◽

Hall ◽

Richardson ◽

Ross

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Primary Care ◽

African American ◽

Cancer Screening ◽

Primary Care Physicians ◽

Prostate Cancer Screening ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Screening Practices

Download Full-text

Primary care physicians' reported use of pre-screening discussions for prostate cancer screening: a cross-sectional survey

BMC Family Practice ◽

10.1186/1471-2296-10-19 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Suzanne K Linder ◽

Sarah T Hawley ◽

Crystale P Cooper ◽

Lawrence E Scholl ◽

Maria Jibaja-Weiss ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Primary Care ◽

Cancer Screening ◽

Primary Care Physicians ◽

Prostate Cancer Screening ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional

Download Full-text

Management of erectile dysfunction after prostate cancer treatment: cross-sectional surveys of the perceptions and experiences of patients and healthcare professionals in the UK

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030856 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (10) ◽

pp. e030856 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Amy Dyer ◽

Mike Kirby ◽

Isabel D White ◽

Alison Michelle Cooper

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Primary Care ◽

Erectile Dysfunction ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Real Life ◽

Similar Proportion ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Management Options ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Planning Stage

ObjectivesErectile dysfunction (ED) is known to be a common consequence of radical treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) but is often under-reported and undertreated. This study aimed to explore how ED in patients with PCa is managed in real-life clinical practice, from the perspective of patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs).Design and settingThis is a UK-wide cross-sectional survey of men with ED after treatment for PCa which covered assessment and discussion of erectile function, provision of supportive care and satisfaction with management. Parallel surveys of primary and secondary HCPs were also conducted.ResultsResponses were received from 546 men with ED after PCa treatment, 167 primary (general practitioners and practice nurses) and 94 secondary care HCPs (urologists and urology clinical nurse specialists). Survey findings revealed inadequate management of ED in primary care, particularly underprescribing of effective management options. A fifth of men (21%) were not offered any ED management, and a similar proportion (23%) were not satisfied with the way HCPs addressed their ED concerns. There was poor communication between HCPs and men, including failure to initiate discussions about ED and/or involve partners, with 12% of men not told that ED was a risk factor of PCa treatment. These issues seemed to reflect poor access to effective ED management or services and lack of primary HCP confidence in managing ED, as well as confusion over the roles and responsibilities among both HCPs and men.ConclusionsThis study confirms the need for better support for men from HCPs and more tailored and timely access to effective ED management after treatment for PCa. A clearly defined pathway is required for the discussion and management of ED, starting from the planning stage of PCa treatment. Improved adherence to ED management guidelines and better education and training for primary care HCPs are areas of priority.

Download Full-text