scholarly journals Prostate cancer screening in low- and middle- income countries: the Mexican case

2019 ◽  
Vol 61 (4, jul-ago) ◽  
pp. 542
Author(s):  
Martin Lajous ◽  
Matthew R Cooperberg ◽  
Jennifer Rider ◽  
Hugo Arturo Manzanilla-García ◽  
Fernando Bernardo Gabilondo-Navarro ◽  
...  

 Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based early detection for prostate cancer is the subject of intense debate. Imple­mentation of organized prostate cancer screening has been challenging, in part because the PSA test is so amenable to opportunistic screening. To the extent that access to cancer screening tests increases in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is an urgent need to thoughtfully evaluate existing and future cancer screening strategies to ensure benefit and control costs. We used Mexico’s prostate cancer screening efforts to illustrate the challenges LMICs face. We provide five considerations for policymakers for a smarter approach and implementation of PSA-based screening. 

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (11) ◽  
pp. 1187-1193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Roberts ◽  
Corydon Mitchell ◽  
Ana Lourdes Tancawan ◽  
Mandi Pedican ◽  
Glenn Wayne Jones

AAOHN Journal ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 46 (8) ◽  
pp. 379-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Snyder ◽  
Peggy N. Schrammel ◽  
Claudia B. Griffiths ◽  
Robert I. Griffiths

Recognition of the mortality and morbidity associated with prostate cancer has resulted in employer based screening programs. This retrospective cohort study identified the employer costs of prostate cancer screening and referrals due to abnormal test results. The subjects were 385 men enrolled in a workplace screening program at a single employer between 1993 and 1995. Screening consisted of digital rectal examination (DRE) annually for enrolled employees aged 40 years and older, plus annual prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing for those 50 and older, and those 40 and older and considered at high risk. Data related to the health care and lost productivity costs of screening and referrals for abnormal test results were collected and analyzed. The total cost of screening was $44,355, or approximately $56 per screening encounter (788 DREs; 437 PSAs). Abnormal screening tests resulted in 52 referrals. Upon further evaluation, 42% were found to have an enlargement, 29% a node, and 12% benign prostatic hyperplasia. Only one malignancy was found. The total cost of additional referrals was $31,815, or 42% of the cost of screening plus referrals. As the cost per screening encounter was low, prostate cancer screening in the workplace is an efficient alternative.


2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 264-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Carrasco-Garrido ◽  
V. Hernandez-Barrera ◽  
A. Lopez de Andres ◽  
I. Jimenez-Trujillo ◽  
C. Gallardo Pino ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 096914132094190
Author(s):  
Meghan Gilfoyle ◽  
Ashok Chaurasia ◽  
John Garcia ◽  
Mark Oremus

Introduction To assess the association between perceived susceptibility of developing cancer and being screened via sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy and prostate-specific antigen, respectively. Methods Participants aged 35–69, who resided in Alberta, Canada, were enrolled into the study between 2000 and 2008. We used general linear mixed models, adjusted for age, marital status, work status, education, family history and place of residence, to explore the association. Results Perceived susceptibility of developing cancer was associated with both screening tests at baseline and a maximum of 14-year follow-up: (i) colorectal cancer screening – adjusted odds ratios were 1.97 (95% CI = 1.52–2.55) per one-unit increase in participants' personal belief in susceptibility to cancer, and 1.03 (95% CI = 1.00–1.04) per one-percent increase in participants’ estimate of their own chance of developing cancer; (ii) prostate cancer screening – adjusted odds ratios were 1.36 times greater (95% CI = 1.07–1.72), and 1.02 times higher (95% CI = 1.01–1.03), for each respective perceived susceptibility measure. Conclusion Health promotion can focus on targeting and heightening personal perceived susceptibility of developing cancer in jurisdictions with low screening rates for colorectal or prostate cancer.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document