Literature DB >> 16808772

The impact of a suspicious prostate biopsy on patients' psychological, socio-behavioral, and medical care outcomes.

Floyd J Fowler1, Michael J Barry, Beth Walker-Corkery, Jean-Francois Caubet, David W Bates, Jeong Min Lee, Alison Hauser, Mary McNaughton-Collins.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the psychological, socio-behavioral, and medical implications of apparently false-positive prostate cancer screening results.
METHODS: One hundred and twenty-one men with a benign prostate biopsy performed in response to a suspicious screening test (biopsy group) and 164 men with a normal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test result (normal PSA group) responded to a questionnaire 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months after their biopsy or PSA test.
RESULTS: The mean (+/-SD) age of respondents was 61+/-9 years (range, 41 to 88 years). One year later, 26% (32/121) of men in the biopsy group reported having worried "a lot" or "some of the time" that they may develop prostate cancer, compared with 6% (10/164) in the normal PSA group (P<.001). Forty-six percent of the biopsy group reported thinking their wife or significant other was concerned about prostate cancer, versus 14% in the normal PSA group (P<.001). Medical record review showed that biopsied men were more likely than those in the normal PSA group to have had at least 1 follow-up PSA test over the year (73% vs 42%, P<.001), more likely to have had another biopsy (15% vs 1%, P<.001), and more likely to have visited a urologist (71% vs 13%, P<.001).
CONCLUSION: One year later, men who underwent prostate biopsy more often reported worrying about prostate cancer. In addition, there were related psychological, socio-behavioral, and medical care implications. These hidden tolls associated with screening should be considered in the discussion about the benefits and risks of prostate cancer screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16808772      PMCID: PMC1924716          DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00464.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  25 in total

1.  Psychological benefits of prostate cancer screening: the role of reassurance.

Authors:  Scott B Cantor; Robert J Volk; Alvah R Cass; Jawaria Gilani; Stephen J Spann
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.377

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

Authors:  Marvella E Ford; Suzanne L Havstad; Ray Demers; Christine Cole Johnson
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Is one set of sextant biopsies enough to rule out prostate Cancer? Influence of transition and total prostate volumes on prostate cancer yield.

Authors:  B Djavan; A R Zlotta; S Ekane; M Remzi; G Kramer; T Roumeguère; M Etemad; R Wolfram; C C Schulman; M Marberger
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 4.  Screening for prostate cancer: an update of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Russell Harris; Kathleen N Lohr
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-12-03       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Linda L Humphrey; Mark Helfand; Benjamin K S Chan; Steven H Woolf
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 6.  Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Michael Pignone; Melissa Rich; Steven M Teutsch; Alfred O Berg; Kathleen N Lohr
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-07-16       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States.

Authors:  Lisa M Schwartz; Steven Woloshin; Floyd J Fowler; H Gilbert Welch
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-01-07       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Preferences of husbands and wives for outcomes of prostate cancer screening and treatment.

Authors:  Robert J Volk; Scott B Cantor; Alvah R Cass; Stephen J Spann; Susan C Weller; Murray D Krahn
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Screening men for prostate and colorectal cancer in the United States: does practice reflect the evidence?

Authors:  Brenda E Sirovich; Lisa M Schwartz; Steven Woloshin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-03-19       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 10.  Why is prostate cancer screening so common when the evidence is so uncertain? A system without negative feedback.

Authors:  David F Ransohoff; Mary McNaughton Collins; Floyd J Fowler
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2002-12-01       Impact factor: 4.965

View more
  23 in total

1.  Furthering the prostate cancer screening debate (prostate cancer specific mortality and associated risks).

Authors:  G Michael Allan; Michael P Chetner; Bryan J Donnelly; Neil A Hagen; David Ross; J Dean Ruether; Peter Venner
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 2.  Principles of cancer screening: lessons from history and study design issues.

Authors:  Jennifer M Croswell; David F Ransohoff; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 4.929

3.  Psychological impact of serial prostate-specific antigen tests in Japanese men waiting for prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Minoru Kobayashi; Akinori Nukui; Takao Kamai
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Experiences of Uncertainty in Men With an Elevated PSA.

Authors:  Caitlin Biddle; Alicia Brasel; Willie Underwood; Heather Orom
Journal:  Am J Mens Health       Date:  2016-06-23

5.  Risk perception and psychological morbidity in men at elevated risk for prostate cancer.

Authors:  A G Matthew; T Davidson; S Ochs; K L Currie; A Petrella; A Finelli
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 6.  Prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Elise D Cook; Ana C Nelson
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 5.075

7.  Potential use of chymotrypsin-like proteasomal activity as a biomarker for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Xinghua Wei; Weiwei Zeng; Keji Xie; Pengfei Diao; Ping Tang
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 2.967

8.  Impact of prostate cancer testing: an evaluation of the emotional consequences of a negative biopsy result.

Authors:  R C Macefield; C Metcalfe; J A Lane; J L Donovan; K N L Avery; J M Blazeby; L Down; D E Neal; F C Hamdy; K Vedhara
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-04-06       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  False-positive screening results in the Finnish prostate cancer screening trial.

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

10.  The routine use of prostate-specific antigen for early detection of cancer prostate in India: Is it justified?

Authors:  Deepak Dubey
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2009-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.