PURPOSE: Men with a family history of prostate cancer and black men are at higher risk for prostate cancer. Recruitment and retention of these men at high risk into early detection programs is challenging. We report a comprehensive analysis of recruitment methods, show rates and participant factors from the Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Program, a prospective, longitudinal prostate cancer screening study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men 35 to 69 years old were eligible for recruitment if they had a family history of prostate cancer, were black or had a BRCA1/2 mutation. Recruitment methods were analyzed using standard statistical methods with respect to participant demographics and presentation to the first program appointment. RESULTS: Of 707 men recruited 64.9% presented to the initial program appointment. More men were recruited via radio than via referral or other methods (chi-square = 298.13, p <0.0001). Men recruited by radio were more likely to be black (p <0.001), less educated (p = 0.003) and not married or partnered (p = 0.007), and have no prostate cancer family history (p <0.001). Men recruited by referral had a higher income (p = 0.007) and were more likely to attend the initial program visit than those recruited by radio or other methods (chi-square = 27.08, p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive analysis shows that radio led to higher recruitment of black men with lower socioeconomic status. However, these men at high risk have a lower presentation rate for prostate cancer screening. Targeted motivational measures must be studied to improve the show rate for prostate cancer risk assessment in these men at high risk.
PURPOSE:Men with a family history of prostate cancer and black men are at higher risk for prostate cancer. Recruitment and retention of these men at high risk into early detection programs is challenging. We report a comprehensive analysis of recruitment methods, show rates and participant factors from the Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Program, a prospective, longitudinal prostate cancer screening study. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Men 35 to 69 years old were eligible for recruitment if they had a family history of prostate cancer, were black or had a BRCA1/2 mutation. Recruitment methods were analyzed using standard statistical methods with respect to participant demographics and presentation to the first program appointment. RESULTS: Of 707 men recruited 64.9% presented to the initial program appointment. More men were recruited via radio than via referral or other methods (chi-square = 298.13, p <0.0001). Men recruited by radio were more likely to be black (p <0.001), less educated (p = 0.003) and not married or partnered (p = 0.007), and have no prostate cancer family history (p <0.001). Men recruited by referral had a higher income (p = 0.007) and were more likely to attend the initial program visit than those recruited by radio or other methods (chi-square = 27.08, p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive analysis shows that radio led to higher recruitment of black men with lower socioeconomic status. However, these men at high risk have a lower presentation rate for prostate cancer screening. Targeted motivational measures must be studied to improve the show rate for prostate cancer risk assessment in these men at high risk.
Authors: Benjamin A Spencer; Susan H Babey; David A Etzioni; Ninez A Ponce; E Richard Brown; Hongjian Yu; Neetu Chawla; Mark S Litwin Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Raj S Pruthi; Chris Tornehl; Kris Gaston; Kevin Lee; Dominic Moore; Culley C Carson; Eric M Wallen Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2005-12-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: D W Bruner; A Baffoe-Bonnie; S Miller; M Diefenbach; J V Tricoli; M Daly; W Pinover; S C Grumet; J Stofey; E Ross; S Raysor; A Balshem; J Malick; P Engstrom; G E Hanks; I Mirchandani Journal: Oncology (Williston Park) Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 2.990
Authors: C Royal; A Baffoe-Bonnie; R Kittles; I Powell; J Bennett; G Hoke; C Pettaway; S Weinrich; S Vijayakumar; C Ahaghotu; T Mason; E Johnson; M Obeikwe; C Simpson; R Mejia; W Boykin; P Roberson; J Frost; L Faison-Smith; C Meegan; N Foster; P Furbert-Harris; J Carpten; J Bailey-Wilson; J Trent; K Berg; G Dunston; F Collins Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Stefano Ciatto; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Hans Lilja; Marco Zappa; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Antonio Berenguer; Liisa Määttänen; Chris H Bangma; Gunnar Aus; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Theodorus van der Kwast; Bert G Blijenberg; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning; Anssi Auvinen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J Melia; D Dearnaley; S Moss; L Johns; P Coulson; C Moynihan; J Sweetman; M C Parkinson; R Eeles; M Watson Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-02-27 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Omotola S Ashorobi; Jacqueline Frost; Xuemei Wang; Pamela Roberson; E Lin; Robert J Volk; David S Lopez; Lovell A Jones; Curtis A Pettaway Journal: Am J Mens Health Date: 2016-07-08
Authors: Linda Fleisher; Stacy N Davis; Laura Gross; Loretta Bagden; Debra Zakrzewski; Evelyn González; Venk Kandadai; Cheryl Rusten; Jerilyn Baskett; Elias Obeid; Veda N Giri Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Roberto L Muller; Eliney F Faria; Gustavo F Carvalhal; Rodolfo B Reis; Edmundo C Mauad; Andre L Carvalho; Stephen J Freedland Journal: World J Urol Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 4.226