Shared decision making and prostate-specific antigen based prostate cancer screening following the 2018 update of USPSTF screening guideline

Author(s):  
Changchuan Jiang ◽  
Stacey A. Fedewa ◽  
Yumeng Wen ◽  
Ahmedin Jemal ◽  
Xuesong Han
2021 ◽  
pp. 74-77
Author(s):  
Michael A. Diefenbach ◽  
Daniel Nethala ◽  
Michael Schwartz ◽  
Simon J. Hall

This chapter introduces the controversy of prostate cancer screening that has emerged over the past two decades, starting with the widespread use of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test in 1994. The PSA test revolutionized prostate cancer detection as it is the first biomarker available to physicians to identify prostate cancers that could not be detected by a digital rectal exam. However, unrestricted utilization of the PSA test in asymptomatic men led to an increase in overdiagnosis and treatment-related morbidity. When reviewing evidence relating prostate cancer screening to prostate cancer–related morbidity and mortality, the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a recommendation in 2012 that screening among asymptomatic men for prostate cancer produces more harm than benefit. These recommendations were updated in 2018 to offer screening selectively for men between the ages of 55 and 69 years. Both recommendations called for physicians to engage patients in shared decision making regarding screening. Consequences of these recommendations on shared decision making, health communication, and efforts to address disparities in screening among underserved and at-risk populations are discussed.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 1870-4
Author(s):  
Hussein Saad Amin ◽  
Mostafafa Ahmed Arafa ◽  
Karim Hamda Farhat ◽  
Danny Munther Rabah ◽  
Abdulaziz Abdullah Altaweel ◽  
...  

Background: Men over 50 should discuss the benefits and harms of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing with their doctors. Objectives: To investigate whether shared decision making (SDM) increases the uptake of prostate cancer screening prac- tices among Saudi men. Methods: This community-based study recruited men aged ≥ 50 years between January and April 2019. Sociodemographic characteristics, history, and current medical condition information were collected. SDM information with regards to prostate cancer screening was discussed. Results: In total, 2034 Saudi men, aged between 50 and 88 years, agreed to participate in the current study. Prostate exam- ination for early detection of cancer was recommended for 35.4% (720) of subjects. Of the subjects, 23.3% (473) reported that the physicians discussed the advantages and benefits of PSA testing, whereas only 5.6% (114) stated that the physicians explained the disadvantages and drawbacks of PSA testing. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that less than one fourth discussed the advantages and disadvantages of PSA testing with their physicians; of these, less than one third underwent PSA blood tests. Improvements are needed in SDM for and against PSA screening. SDM does not affect the intensity of PSA testing. Primary health care physicians should be actively involved in the SDM process. Keywords: Decision making; prostate cancer screening; low prevalence countries.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19077-e19077
Author(s):  
Sung Jun Ma ◽  
Oluwadamilola Temilade Oladeru ◽  
Joseph Miccio ◽  
Katy Wang ◽  
Kristopher Attwood ◽  
...  

e19077 Background: More than 10 million Americans identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT), and the majority of male-to-female (MTF) transgender individuals still have prostates even after surgical transitions. Guidelines on prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening for LGBT populations are limited, and informed and shared decision making are encouraged by various organizations. However, patterns of care for PSA screening in LGBT populations remains unclear. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a cross sectional study to evaluate self-reported PSA screening and decision making among LGBT populations. Methods: The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System database was queried for LGBT adults from 2014-2016 and 2018. Those with prior prostate cancer were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate the association of LGBT status with PSA screening, informed and shared decision making, after adjusting for demographic characteristics and survey weights. Results: A total of 164,370 participants were eligible for PSA screening (n = 156,548 for cisgender [CG]+straight, n = 156 for MTF+straight, n = 33 for MTF+gay, n = 52 for MTF+bisexual, n = 51 for MTF+other sexual orientation [SO], n = 3354 for CG+gay, n = 1641 for CG+bisexual, n = 2535 for CG+other SO), representing a weighted estimate of 1.2 million LGBT populations. When compared to CG+straight, CG+gay/bisexual cohorts were more likely to undergo PSA screening within the past 2 years (CG+gay: OR 1.08, p < 0.001; CG+bisexual: OR 1.06, p < 0.001), have ever received PSA screening (CG+gay: OR 1.30, p < 0.001; CG+bisexual: OR 1.12, p < 0.001), and be recommended for PSA screening by their physicians (CG+gay and bisexual: OR 1.16, p < 0.001). All other cohorts were less likely to do so (all OR < 1, p < 0.05). MTF+gay and CG+gay participants were more likely to make informed decision (MTF+gay: OR 3.13, p < 0.001; CG+gay: OR 1.09, p < 0.001), while all other cohorts were less likely to do so (all OR < 1, p < 0.05). CG+gay participants were also more likely to share decision (OR 2.51, p < 0.001), while there were no associations for all other cohorts (all p > 0.05). Conclusions: Select gay populations were more likely to undertake PSA screening recommended by their physicians and participate in informed and shared decision making. However, other LGBT populations were less likely to make informed decisions, and transgender participants were less likely to undergo PSA screening. Further research efforts are needed to improve informed and shared decision making for PSA screening in such underserved population.


2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (10) ◽  
pp. 1006-1013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randi M. Williams ◽  
Nicole L. Zincke ◽  
Ralph O. Turner ◽  
Jackson L. Davis ◽  
Kimberly M. Davis ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document