William Hamilton1, Deborah Sharp. 1. Division of Primary Health Care, University of Bristol, Cotham House, Cotham Hill, Bristol BS6 6JL. w.hamilton@bristol.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer has the second highest cancer incidence and mortality in European men. Most prostate cancers are diagnosed after lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are presented to primary care, but such symptoms more often have a benign cause. A general practitioner (GP) has to try and identify which of these patients have prostate cancer. AIMS: To review the presenting features of symptomatic prostate cancer. DESIGN OF STUDY: Structured review. METHOD: We searched Medline from 1980 to 2003 for symptoms, signs, and investigations reported in prostate cancer. This list was then expanded by secondary searches of reference lists. We excluded studies on post-diagnostic topics, such as staging, treatment, and prognosis; studies on non-Western patients; and studies on investigations that are not available in primary care. A second cycle of exclusions removed studies whose results would not guide a GP in deciding whether a patient has prostate cancer. RESULTS: No studies from primary care compared prostate cancer patients directly with controls. Two secondary care studies had enough information to allow a comparison of symptoms in cases compared with controls. In these studies, symptoms were generally more prevalent in cases, but the differences were small. Screening and secondary care studies suggest that early prostate cancer is symptomless, and that locally advanced cancer has LUTS that are similar to those for benign prostatic hypertrophy. CONCLUSION: There is a very weak evidence base for the primary care diagnosis of prostate cancer in men with lower urinary tract symptoms.
BACKGROUND:Prostate cancer has the second highest cancer incidence and mortality in European men. Most prostate cancers are diagnosed after lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are presented to primary care, but such symptoms more often have a benign cause. A general practitioner (GP) has to try and identify which of these patients have prostate cancer. AIMS: To review the presenting features of symptomatic prostate cancer. DESIGN OF STUDY: Structured review. METHOD: We searched Medline from 1980 to 2003 for symptoms, signs, and investigations reported in prostate cancer. This list was then expanded by secondary searches of reference lists. We excluded studies on post-diagnostic topics, such as staging, treatment, and prognosis; studies on non-Western patients; and studies on investigations that are not available in primary care. A second cycle of exclusions removed studies whose results would not guide a GP in deciding whether a patient has prostate cancer. RESULTS: No studies from primary care compared prostate cancerpatients directly with controls. Two secondary care studies had enough information to allow a comparison of symptoms in cases compared with controls. In these studies, symptoms were generally more prevalent in cases, but the differences were small. Screening and secondary care studies suggest that early prostate cancer is symptomless, and that locally advanced cancer has LUTS that are similar to those for benign prostatic hypertrophy. CONCLUSION: There is a very weak evidence base for the primary care diagnosis of prostate cancer in men with lower urinary tract symptoms.
Authors: W M Garraway; E B Russell; R J Lee; G N Collins; G B McKelvie; M Hehir; A C Rogers; R J Simpson Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 1993-08 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: William J Catalona; Jerome P Richie; Frederick R Ahmann; M'Liss A Hudson; Peter T Scardino; Robert C Flanigan; Jean B DeKernion; Timothy L Ratliff; Louis R Kavoussi; Bruce L Dalkin; W Bedford Waters; Michael T MacFarlane; Paula C Southwick Journal: J Urol Date: 1994-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Victoria L Allgar; Richard D Neal; Nasreen Ali; Brenda Leese; Phil Heywood; Gill Proctor; Joyce Evans Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: M R Quinlan; B J O'Daly; M F O'Brien; S Gardner; G Lennon; D W Mulvin; D M Quinlan Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2009-04-15 Impact factor: 1.568