Prostate cancer screening: Role of digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen

1994 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerome P. Richie ◽  
Louis R. Kavoussi ◽  
George T. Ho ◽  
Martyn A. Vickers ◽  
Michael A. O'Donnell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
Rectal Examination

Occupation as a predictor of prostate cancer screening behaviour in Canada

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 215-222
Author(s):  
Cheryl E Peters ◽  
Paul J Villeneuve ◽  
Marie-Élise Parent
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Screening Practices ◽  
Rectal Examination ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen Test

Objectives If prostate cancer screening practices relate to occupation, this would have important implications when studying the aetiological role of workplace exposures on prostate cancer. We identified variations in screening by occupation among men in Montreal, Canada (2005–2012). Methods Prostate specific antigen testing and digital rectal examination (ever-screened and frequency of screening, previous five years) were examined among population controls from the Prostate Cancer & Environment Study. Face-to-face interviews elicited lifestyle and occupational histories. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of ever-screening for the longest-held occupation, adjusting for potential confounders. Negative binomial models were used to examine relationships with screening frequency. Results Among 1989 controls, 81% reported ever having had a prostate specific antigen test, and 77% a digital rectal examination. Approximately 40% of men reported having a prostate specific antigen test once a year, on average. Compared with those in management or administrative jobs, men in primary industry (odds ratio 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.10–0.65), construction (0.44, 0.25–0.79), machining (0.45, 0.21–0.97), and teaching (0.37, 0.20–0.70) were less likely to have undergone prostate specific antigen screening. Results were similar when considering the most recent job. Conclusions Our findings highlight substantial variations in prostate cancer screening by occupation. Men in occupations where carcinogen exposures are more common are less likely to participate in prostate screening activities. This could be an important source of bias, and occupational studies of prostate cancer should account for screening practices.

Randomised Trial of Prostate Cancer Screening in the Netherlands: Assessment of Acceptance and Motives for Attendance

1997 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 102-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
H G T Nijs ◽  
D M R Tordoir ◽  
J H Schuurman ◽  
W J Kirkels ◽  
F H Schroder
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Personal Benefit ◽  
Screening Procedures

Abstract Objectives— To assess motives for attending a randomised population based prostate cancer screening trial, and to assess acceptance of screening and invitation procedures. Methods— First pilot of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC; 1992/1993). Men aged 55–75 years, randomly selected from the population register of four city districts of Rotterdam, were invited by a single invitation for screening. Screening consisted of prostate specific antigen prescreening followed by either (1) digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasound, and, on indication, biopsy, or (2) no additional screening. After screening, or in the case of non-attendance, a questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 600 attenders and 400 non-attenders, with a reminder after three weeks. Outcome measures— In both attenders and non-attenders: Knowledge of prostate cancer, attitudes towards screening, motives for attending, procedural aspects and sociodemographic characteristics. In attenders, acceptance of screening procedures. Results— The response rate for the questionnaire was 76%: 94% in attenders and 42% in non-attenders. The main reasons for attending were expected personal benefit (76%) and scientific value (39%), and those for not attending were the absence of urological complaints (41%) and anticipated pain or discomfort (24%). Uptake of screening was 32%, which increased to a sustained 42% in following years. Attenders, compared with non-attenders, were significantly younger, more often married, better educated, and had higher perceived health status, more knowledge about prostate cancer, and a more positive attitude towards screening. Information materials and invitation procedure were adequate. Screening procedures were well accepted (high report marks and satisfaction, and 95% would attend for rescreening). A single prostate specific antigen determination was liked less than a combination of all three screening modalities. Conclusions— (1) The main reasons for attending are personal benefit and science, and those for not attending were absence of urological complaints and anticipated pain or discomfort; (2) knowledge, attitudes, and motives for attending are comparable with other screening programmes; hence, for population based prostate cancer screening, known health promotional aspects should be carefully considered; (3) prostate specific antigen, digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound are acceptable to attenders.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the role of digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen in diagnosis of prostate cancer

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bülent Altunoluk ◽  
Mustafa Remzi Bahar ◽  
Mustafa Eren ◽  
Remziye Eren ◽  
Harun Çıralık ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
Rectal Examination
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document