PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Prostate cancer screening”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

[Prostate cancer screening].

Prostate cancer has become the most frequent cancer and the second cause of cancer mortality in men. This public health problem is becoming increasingly important due to the increasing life expectancy. At the present time, prostate cancer will be discovered in one in every eight men during their lifetime. Prostate cancer represents 25% of all new cases of male cancers. Prostate cancer screening is designed to detect early stage, asymptomatic prostate cancer, as the patient's chances of cure are higher when the cancer is diagnosed at an early stage. The conclusions of the ANAES evaluation in 1998 did not recommend mass screening for prostate cancer. Several international prospective randomized studies based on serum PSA assay, sometimes associated with digital rectal examination, are currently underway. France is participating in the European ERSPC study (European Randomized Study of Screening for Cancer Prostate) and is organizing a national study on high-risk populations. While waiting for the final results of these studies, a recommendation needs to be proposed to inform general practitioners and specialists about optimal use of the currently available tests. Based on the conclusions of its oncology committee (composed of urologists, medical oncologists, radiotherapists, pathologists and radiologists), the Association Française d'Urologie proposes a recommendation concerning prostate cancer screening and defines its modalities, especially concerning the target population, screening tests and the information given to men before screening. The Association Française d'Urologie recommends prostate cancer screening by PSA assay (prostate specific antigen) and digital rectal examination annually between the ages of 50 and 75 years, and from the age of 45 years in men with a family or ethnic risk. If total PSA is above the normal value of the test or if digital rectal examination is abnormal, referral to a urologist is recommended. Information concerning the limits, benefits and risks of screening and the available treatment options must be given before performing these examinations.

Humans↗
PubMed1998

Perceived benefits: a predictor of participation in prostate cancer screening.

Prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed major cancer and the second cause of cancer-related deaths among men. With early detection through screening and timely treatment, 9 out of 10 men will survive a minimum of 5 years. However, with late diagnoses, only 3 out of 10 men will have a 5-year minimum survival rate. Guided by a conceptual map, this correlational research examined perceived benefits as a predictor of participation in free prostate cancer screening. Perceived benefits are the personal belief and valuing of screening for early detection of prostate cancer. All subjects received one of four educational interventions: traditional, peer educator, client navigator, or combination. Participation in prostate cancer screening was measured by compliance with the American Cancer Society's Guidelines, which included a digital rectal exam (DRE) and/or a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test. The purposive sample (n = 1,522) of men, ages 40 to 70 years, was recruited from randomly selected churches, barbershops, industries, housing projects, and car dealerships in a southeastern state. Seventy-two percent of the sample was African American. Predictors of participation in free prostate cancer screening were these: perceived benefits, being white, having at least a high school education, being married, and receiving the client navigator or combination educational intervention. The Benefits Scale was significant (p = 0.013, odds ratio (OR) = 1.059) as a predictor for participation in screening when all demographic variables and educational interventions were controlled. Practice implications for nursing are discussed and recommendations for future research are presented.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Attitudes and practices of primary care physicians for prostate cancer screening.

Prostate cancer screening with digital rectal examination (DRE) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is recommended by several professional organizations. Our objective was to assess the prostate cancer screening practices and attitudes reported by primary care physicians. We randomly surveyed 454 Arizona primary care physicians, subsequently excluding 124 ineligible subjects. Overall, 141 of 329 eligible physicians completed the survey (42.9%). Survey data included physician demographics, practice characteristics, screening and follow-up strategies, and attitudes toward screening. One hundred thirty-one physicians (93%) reported screening asymptomatic men with DRE or PSA. Respondents generally agreed that screening tests were accurate and that early detection was beneficial. Screening began at an average patient age of 45 years, though 7.8% of respondents began screening men younger than 40 years and 7.0% began screening men older than 50 years. PSA levels ranging from 3.9 to 40 ng/mL were considered abnormal, and 11.6% of respondents used a cutpoint higher than 10 ng/mL. Primary care physicians report a high rate of screening for prostate cancer and consider PSA and DRE accurate and useful tests. Screening practices, however, varied considerably between physicians. The screening of younger men reported by practitioners would tend to increase the rate of false-positive tests, while using a high cutpoint for PSA and delaying screening beyond age 50 years would decrease the chance for early detection. These screening practices may increase health care costs without necessarily leading to improved health outcomes. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH): prostatic neoplasms, prostate-specific antigen, primary health care, screening.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Viewpoint: limiting prostate cancer screening.

Prostate cancer screening is controversial, and major professional associations offer differing screening guidelines. The author addresses 3 key issues about prostate cancer screening: 1) the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) criteria to recommend a prostate biopsy, 2) the appropriate age to start screening, and 3) the appropriate age to stop screening. The author argues, on the basis of evidence published since 2000, that data supporting the efficacy of PSA screening remain unconvincing. The author recommends that screening should not be expanded to include average-risk men younger than age 50 years or older than age 75 years and that a PSA threshold below 4.0 ng/mL should not be used to trigger biopsy referral.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Viewpoint: expanding prostate cancer screening.

Prostate cancer screening is controversial, and major professional associations offer differing screening guidelines. The authors address 3 key issues about prostate cancer screening: 1) the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) criteria to recommend a prostate biopsy, 2) the appropriate age to start screening, and 3) the appropriate age to stop screening. The authors argue, on the basis of evidence published since 2000, that data supporting the efficacy of PSA screening are convincing. They recommend screening for risk assessment for average-risk men beginning at age 40 years, screening selected healthy men older than age 70 years, and lowering the PSA threshold for considering biopsy to 2.5 ng/mL for all men.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Prostate cancer screening.

Prostate cancer is the leading noncutaneous cancer in men of the Western world. Because of its prevalence and ability to cause morbidity and mortality,prostate cancer screening continues to be an important area of focus in health care. This article covers the sensitivity and specificity of prostate-specific antigen and current techniques used to improve the test's validity, the importance of detecting clinically important cancers with screening, as well as the downward stage migration, decreased disease-specific mortality, and decreased metastases rate seen inpatients screened and treated for prostate cancer.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Update on prostate cancer screening.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cause of death in men; it is diagnosed in about 1 in 10 men. Significant risk factors include, but are not limited to, race and age; the peak age at diagnosis is the seventh decade. A through screening program, sensitive to the risk factors and targeted to patients with curable prostate cancer, can decrease the rates of mortality and morbidity associated with this disease, without overtreating patients who have latent cancer. Screening methods include annual digital rectal examinations and prostate-specific antigen tests. Staging is important when treatment options are considered and treatment morbidity rate is weighed against disease mortality rate. Research concerning genetics changes and chemoprevention trials of vitamins and hormonal agents are targeted toward primary prevention. Implications for practice should include primary prevention, screening and detection, public education, and monitoring of the disease.

Aged↗
PubMed1996

Prostate cancer screening.

Prostate cancer is a common cancer and a leading cause of cancer death in men. It is potentially detectable at early, possibly curative stages through various combinations of testing, including DRE, PSA, and TRUS of the prostate. Still unproven is the effectiveness of prostate cancer treatment, and because of that lack of proof, the optimal screening strategies are also elusive. It is possible that what is known as prostate cancer today may be, in fact, multiple entities with different natural histories, different treatment needs, and, consequently, different screening strategies. The role of informed consent has been suggested as a means to involve patients in the decision process, especially because the literature presents an environment of intense controversy. It is hoped that the PIVOT trial or similar efforts and further research into the basic mechanisms of the disease will provide clearer answers in the future.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Prostate cancer screening.

Prostate cancer is an important and growing public health problem. PSA testing is able to lead to the identification of large numbers of cases of prostate cancer while still asymptomatic. This provides the potential for important reductions in prostate cancer mortality through the introduction of screening programs. The most reliable evidence that this potential can be realised can only come from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Alternative sources of evidence are compared with that from RCTs; the costs of a wrong decision would be high and it is argued that the case for RCTs is clear.

Case-Control Studies↗
PubMed1996

Prospective evaluation plan for randomised trials of prostate cancer screening. The International Prostate Cancer Screening Trial Evaluation Group.

To enable pooled analyses of continuing and planned randomised trials of prostate cancer screening, guidelines for minimal data required for such analyses were developed in the recent meeting of the International Prostate Screening Trial Evaluation Group (IPSTEG). The aim of the pooled analysis with data on individual level will be: (a) Estimation of the effect of screening on prostate cancer mortality with greater precision than individual studies (b) Assessment of optimal screening procedures and interval (c) Identification of subgroups within the populations that might receive most benefit from screening (d) Evaluation of the quality of life effects and cost effectiveness of screening. All studies included in the combined analysis share a common core protocol with minimum data requirements. The protocol allows, however, adaptation of the procedures to local circumstances within defined options. It should be noted that the process is continuing and the protocol is subject to evaluation and revision in the meetings of the IPSTEG on a regular basis.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Effects of false-positive prostate cancer screening results on subsequent prostate cancer screening behavior.

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about screening behavior following a false-positive prostate cancer screening result, which we have defined as a screening result with "abnormal/suspicious" labeling that did not result in a prostate cancer diagnosis within 14 months. The purpose of this analysis was to examine whether age, race, education, or previous false-positive prostate cancer screening results via prostate-specific antigen or digital rectal exam predict decision to obtain subsequent prostate cancer screening. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. The study sample consisted of 2,290 older men (mean age, 62.8 years; range, 55-75 years) who had false-positive (n = 318) or negative (n = 1,972) prostate-specific antigen or digital rectal exam baseline prostate cancer screening results. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the effect of false-positive results on subsequent prostate cancer screening behavior, adjusting for all covariates. RESULTS: The multivariable model showed that being African American (P = 0.016), and having a high school education or less (P = 0.007), having a previous false-positive prostate cancer screening result (P < 0.001), were predictive of not returning for prostate cancer screening in the following screening trial year. CONCLUSION: The study results highlight the importance of shared decision making between patients and their providers regarding the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening, and follow-up options for abnormal prostate cancer screening results. Shared decision making may be especially important for African American men, whom prostate cancer disproportionately affects.

Black or African American↗
PubMed2004

Controversies in prostate cancer screening.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men and the second most common cause of cancer death in men, and yet controversy continues to surround the practice of prostate cancer screening. Despite recent studies that have cast doubt over the true efficacy of breast cancer screening programs, the National Cancer Institute continues to support breast cancer screening and it has withheld endorsement of widespread prostate cancer screening. Criticisms of prostate cancer screening include the financial burden of screening, the morbidity of prostate biopsy, the low positive predictive value of screening, the over treatment of an indolent disease and the lack of evidence demonstrating a mortality benefit due to screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We formulated a comprehensive discussion addressing the criticisms of prostate cancer screening. RESULTS: In an effort to highlight the importance of prostate cancer screening we noted how concerns regarding cost, morbidity and low positive predictive value are common to widely accepted screening programs for other common malignancies. We also draw attention to the danger of abandoning prostate cancer screening, a practice that is called into question by watchful waiting series and Markov modeling of prostate cancer treatment. Finally, we observed how the implementation of prostate cancer screening in the United States has led to the phenomenon of stage migration and paralleled the decrease in the prostate cancer mortality rate. CONCLUSIONS: The prostate specific antigen era has brought great promise for improving the prognosis of prostate cancer. We must continue to seek support for widespread prostate cancer screening.

Humans↗
PubMed2000

Prostate cancer screening: the problem of overdiagnosis and lessons to be learned from breast cancer screening.

Screening for prostate cancer is a relatively new procedure, still under experimental evaluation within prospective randomised trials. The design of prospective studies has been mainly based on the experience of other cancer screenings, particularly breast cancer, for which data of several controlled studies are available. Unfortunately, breast cancer is very different from prostate cancer, particularly for aspects such as early diagnosis and, thus the screening process, originally modelled on the basis of the lesson taught by breast cancer screening, needs continuous re-evaluation and adjustment, based on data which are now being produced from ongoing screening experiences. In this paper, we will consider the most controversial aspects of prostate cancer screening and compare prostate screening with breast cancer screening in order to promote a better understanding of the current problems and lessons to be learned.

Aged↗
PubMed1998

[Prostate cancer screening using prostate specific antigen (PSA) in Tokatsu Hospital--examination of lost-to-followup cases].

We studied the usefulness of prostate cancer screening using prostate specific antigen (PSA) and PSA density (PSAD). In the first year of this screening (1995), we detected prostate cancer in 11 out of 550 (1.7%) subjects. Only 33 of the 47 (70%) subjects whose PSA values were greater than the cut-off value could be followed the following year. The remaining 14 subjects could not be followed mainly because of absence of urination difficulty at that time. The international prostate symptom score (I-PSS) sum and the quality of life (QOL) score at the screening in the unfollowed group were significantly lower than those in the followed group. The subjects who must be followed and whose QOL score and I-PSS sum are low at the time of screening need more careful and persuasive explanation from the urologist on the importance of long-term follow-up.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2002

Prostate cancer screening with prostate specific antigen in spinal cord injured men.

PURPOSE: As the spinal cord injured population ages, prostate cancer becomes a more significant cause of potential mortality. Consequently due to various bladder management techniques the validity of standard prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening values in this population must be evaluated. We compared screening PSA values in a large population of spinal cord injured patients with those in age matched, nonspinal cord injured men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Screening PSA values were obtained using the AxSYM assay (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Illinois) in 366 spinal cord injured men 40 to 79 years old. In those with PSA elevated to greater than 4 ng./ml. who consented to further evaluation standard sextant needle biopsy of the prostate were performed under transrectal ultrasound guidance. Data were compared with data on 371 randomly selected, age matched controls from the Baylor College of Medicine community screening program database of more than 19,000 patient-tests. Analysis was performed with the unpaired Student t test. RESULTS: When we divided patients 40 to 80 years old into 4 age groups by decade and compared them with normal controls by decade, there was no statistically significant difference in mean PSA in the 2 groups. Of 18 spinal cord injured patients with PSA greater than 4 ng./ml. 12 underwent transrectal ultrasound guided needle biopsy of the prostate and 6 refused further evaluation. Five of these biopsies (1.3% overall) were positive and 7 were negative for adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: As in healthy men, PSA and digital rectal examination can be performed in spinal cord injured men to screen for prostate cancer. None of the various bladder management techniques in these cases seemed to affect screening results.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2002

Large-scale randomized prostate cancer screening trials: program performances in the European Randomized Screening for Prostate Cancer trial and the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovary cancer trial.

Two large-scale randomized screening trials, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovary (PLCO) cancer trial in the USA and the European Randomized Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial in Europe are currently under way, aimed at assessing whether screening reduces prostate cancer mortality. Up to the end of 1998, 102,691 men have been randomized to the intervention arm and 115,322 to the control arm (which represents 83% of the target sample size) from 7 European countries and 10 screening centers in the USA. The principal screening method at all centers is determination of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA). The PLCO trial and some European centers use also digital rectal examination (DRE) as an ancillary screening test. In the core age group (55-69 years), 3,362 of 32,486 men screened (10%) had a serum PSA concentration of 4 ng/ml or greater, which is 1 cut-off for biopsy (performed in 84%). An additional 6% was referred for further assessment based on other criteria, with much less efficiency. Differences in PSA by country are largely attributable to the age structure of the study population. The mean age-specific PSA levels are lower in the PLCO trial (1.64 ng/ml [in the age group 55-59 years], 1.80 [60-64 years] and 2.18 [65-69 years) than in the ERSPC trial (1.28-1.71 [55-59], 1.75-2.87 [60-64] and 2.48-3.06 [65-69 years]). Detection rates at the first screen in the ERSPC trial range from 11 to 42/1,000 men screened and reflect underlying differences in incidence rates and screening procedures. In centers with consent to randomization design, adherence in the screening arm is 91%, but less than half of the men in the target population are enrolled in the trial. In population-based centers in which men were randomized prior to consent, all eligible subjects are enrolled, but only about two-thirds of the men in the intervention arm undergo screening. Considerable progress has been made in both trials. Enrollment will be completed in 2001. A substantial number of early prostate cancers have been detected. The differences between countries seem to reflect both underlying prostate cancer incidence and screening policy. The trials have the power to show definitive results in 2005-2008.

Aged↗
PubMed2001

Promoting informed decision making about prostate cancer screening.

Because prostate cancer screening with prostate specific antigen is controversial, informed consent is recommended. Physicians are encouraged to discuss facts about prostate specific antigen with patients and to supplement such discussions with informational brochures or videotapes.

Biomarkers↗