Cargando…

Prostate cancer screening in Primary Health Care: the current state of affairs

This study aims to examine the current practice of General practitioners (GPs)/primary care physicians in opportunistic screening for prostate cancer (PC) by digital rectal examination(DRE) and Prostate Specific Antigen(PSA) testing and identify any difference in screening practice. Printed copies a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ranasinghe, Weranja KB, Kim, Simon P, Papa, Nathan P, Sengupta, Shomik, Frydenberg, Mark, Bolton, Damien, Pond, Dimity, Ried, Karin, Marshall, Melanie J, Persad, Raj, Lawrentschuk, Nathan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4332913/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25713765
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-0819-8
_version_ 1782357963968610304
author Ranasinghe, Weranja KB
Kim, Simon P
Papa, Nathan P
Sengupta, Shomik
Frydenberg, Mark
Bolton, Damien
Pond, Dimity
Ried, Karin
Marshall, Melanie J
Persad, Raj
Lawrentschuk, Nathan
author_facet Ranasinghe, Weranja KB
Kim, Simon P
Papa, Nathan P
Sengupta, Shomik
Frydenberg, Mark
Bolton, Damien
Pond, Dimity
Ried, Karin
Marshall, Melanie J
Persad, Raj
Lawrentschuk, Nathan
author_sort Ranasinghe, Weranja KB
collection PubMed
description This study aims to examine the current practice of General practitioners (GPs)/primary care physicians in opportunistic screening for prostate cancer (PC) by digital rectal examination(DRE) and Prostate Specific Antigen(PSA) testing and identify any difference in screening practice. Printed copies and/or electronic versions of a survey was distributed amongst 438 GPs throughout Australia in 2012. Statistical analyses (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Fisher’s exact test or Pearson chi-square test)were performed by outcomes and GP characteristics.There were a total of 149 responses received (34%), with similar gender distribution in rural and metropolitan settings. 74% GPs believed PSA testing was at least ‘somewhat effective’ in reducing PC mortality with annual PSA screening being conducted by more GPs in the metropolitan setting compared to the rural GPs (35% vs 18.4%), while 25% of rural GPs would not advocate routine PSA screening. When examining the concordance between DRE and PSA testing by gender of GP, the male GPs reported performing PSA testing more frequently than DRE in patients between ages 40 to 69 (p = 0.011). Urology Society guidelines (77.2%) and College of GPs (73.2%) recommendations for PC screening were thought to be at least ‘somewhat useful’. Although reference ranges for PSA tests were felt to be useful, the majority (65.8%) found it easier to refer to an urologist due to the disagreements in guidelines. In conclusion, the current guidelines for PSA screening appear to cause more confusion due to their conflicting advice, leaving GPs to formulate their own practice methods, calling for an urgent need for uniform collaborative guidelines. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40064-015-0819-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4332913
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43329132015-02-24 Prostate cancer screening in Primary Health Care: the current state of affairs Ranasinghe, Weranja KB Kim, Simon P Papa, Nathan P Sengupta, Shomik Frydenberg, Mark Bolton, Damien Pond, Dimity Ried, Karin Marshall, Melanie J Persad, Raj Lawrentschuk, Nathan Springerplus Research This study aims to examine the current practice of General practitioners (GPs)/primary care physicians in opportunistic screening for prostate cancer (PC) by digital rectal examination(DRE) and Prostate Specific Antigen(PSA) testing and identify any difference in screening practice. Printed copies and/or electronic versions of a survey was distributed amongst 438 GPs throughout Australia in 2012. Statistical analyses (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Fisher’s exact test or Pearson chi-square test)were performed by outcomes and GP characteristics.There were a total of 149 responses received (34%), with similar gender distribution in rural and metropolitan settings. 74% GPs believed PSA testing was at least ‘somewhat effective’ in reducing PC mortality with annual PSA screening being conducted by more GPs in the metropolitan setting compared to the rural GPs (35% vs 18.4%), while 25% of rural GPs would not advocate routine PSA screening. When examining the concordance between DRE and PSA testing by gender of GP, the male GPs reported performing PSA testing more frequently than DRE in patients between ages 40 to 69 (p = 0.011). Urology Society guidelines (77.2%) and College of GPs (73.2%) recommendations for PC screening were thought to be at least ‘somewhat useful’. Although reference ranges for PSA tests were felt to be useful, the majority (65.8%) found it easier to refer to an urologist due to the disagreements in guidelines. In conclusion, the current guidelines for PSA screening appear to cause more confusion due to their conflicting advice, leaving GPs to formulate their own practice methods, calling for an urgent need for uniform collaborative guidelines. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40064-015-0819-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2015-02-13 /pmc/articles/PMC4332913/ /pubmed/25713765 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-0819-8 Text en © Ranasinghe et al.; licensee Springer. 2015 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
spellingShingle Research
Ranasinghe, Weranja KB
Kim, Simon P
Papa, Nathan P
Sengupta, Shomik
Frydenberg, Mark
Bolton, Damien
Pond, Dimity
Ried, Karin
Marshall, Melanie J
Persad, Raj
Lawrentschuk, Nathan
Prostate cancer screening in Primary Health Care: the current state of affairs
title Prostate cancer screening in Primary Health Care: the current state of affairs
title_full Prostate cancer screening in Primary Health Care: the current state of affairs
title_fullStr Prostate cancer screening in Primary Health Care: the current state of affairs
title_full_unstemmed Prostate cancer screening in Primary Health Care: the current state of affairs
title_short Prostate cancer screening in Primary Health Care: the current state of affairs
title_sort prostate cancer screening in primary health care: the current state of affairs
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4332913/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25713765
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-0819-8
work_keys_str_mv AT ranasingheweranjakb prostatecancerscreeninginprimaryhealthcarethecurrentstateofaffairs
AT kimsimonp prostatecancerscreeninginprimaryhealthcarethecurrentstateofaffairs
AT papanathanp prostatecancerscreeninginprimaryhealthcarethecurrentstateofaffairs
AT senguptashomik prostatecancerscreeninginprimaryhealthcarethecurrentstateofaffairs
AT frydenbergmark prostatecancerscreeninginprimaryhealthcarethecurrentstateofaffairs
AT boltondamien prostatecancerscreeninginprimaryhealthcarethecurrentstateofaffairs
AT ponddimity prostatecancerscreeninginprimaryhealthcarethecurrentstateofaffairs
AT riedkarin prostatecancerscreeninginprimaryhealthcarethecurrentstateofaffairs
AT marshallmelaniej prostatecancerscreeninginprimaryhealthcarethecurrentstateofaffairs
AT persadraj prostatecancerscreeninginprimaryhealthcarethecurrentstateofaffairs
AT lawrentschuknathan prostatecancerscreeninginprimaryhealthcarethecurrentstateofaffairs