Marvella E Ford1, Suzanne L Havstad, Ray Demers, Christine Cole Johnson. 1. Department of Medicine and Section of Health Services Research, Baylor College of Medicine and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. mford@bcm.tmc.edu
Abstract
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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Authors: Floyd J Fowler; Michael J Barry; Beth Walker-Corkery; Jean-Francois Caubet; David W Bates; Jeong Min Lee; Alison Hauser; Mary McNaughton-Collins Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: David A Katz; David F Jarrard; Colleen A McHorney; Stephen L Hillis; Donald A Wiebe; Dennis G Fryback Journal: Urology Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Marvella E Ford; Laura A Siminoff; Elisabeth Pickelsimer; Arch G Mainous; Daniel W Smith; Vanessa A Diaz; Lea H Soderstrom; Melanie S Jefferson; Barbara C Tilley Journal: Health Soc Work Date: 2013-02
Authors: T P Kilpeläinen; T L J Tammela; L Määttänen; P Kujala; U-H Stenman; M Ala-Opas; T J Murtola; A Auvinen Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-01-05 Impact factor: 7.640