Literature DB >> 25440819

Impact of the 2012 United States Preventive Services Task Force statement on prostate-specific antigen screening: analysis of urologic and primary care practices.

Tomy Y Perez1, Matthew R Danzig2, Rashed A Ghandour2, Ketan K Badani2, Mitchell C Benson2, James M McKiernan2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify the effect of the 2012 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recommendation statement on primary care referral patterns and urologists' decision making.
METHODS: Men referred to our institution for newly elevated PSA level from June 2011 to June 2013 were identified. Patients with a prior history of prostate cancer or biopsy were excluded. Clinical and management parameters were compared between those presenting in the year before vs the year after the USPSTF statement. Factors predictive of receiving a prostate biopsy were identified using multivariate regression analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 201 men were identified in the pre-USPSTF period and 212 men, thereafter. The groups were comparable in age, race, prostate cancer family history, PSA values, and digital rectal examination findings. At the initial evaluation, patients presenting after the statement were more likely to undergo PCA3 testing (27% vs 11%; P <.01) and repeat PSA testing (82% vs 72%; P = .02) and less likely to undergo immediate biopsy (16% vs 24%; P = .03). The proportion of patients ultimately receiving a biopsy was equivalent. The groups were similar in the percentage of positive biopsies, Gleason distribution, and D'Amico risk. African American race and family history were predictors for receiving a biopsy in the post-USPSTF group but not in the pre-USPSTF group.
CONCLUSION: The 2012 USPSTF recommendation statement has not affected the number or clinical characteristics of patients referred to a tertiary center for elevated PSA level. After recommendation, urologists ordered significantly more PCA3 and repeat PSA tests and recommended fewer biopsies at the initial visit. The fraction of patients ultimately receiving a biopsy remained the same.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25440819     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.07.072

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  11 in total

Review 1.  The effect of the USPSTF PSA screening recommendation on prostate cancer incidence patterns in the USA.

Authors:  Katherine Fleshner; Sigrid V Carlsson; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-12-20       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Prostate Cancer Screening and the Goldilocks Principle: How Much Is Just Right?

Authors:  Izak Faiena; Stuart Holden; Mathew R Cooperberg; Stuart Holden; Howard R Soule; Jonathan W Simons; Todd M Morgan; David F Penson; Alicia K Morgans; Maha Hussain
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Prostate cancer screening among family physicians in Ontario: An update on attitudes and current practice.

Authors:  Jason Paul Akerman; Christopher B Allard; Camilla Tajzler; Anil Kapoor
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 1.862

4.  Impact of the US Preventive Services Task Force Grade D Recommendation: Assessment of Evaluations for Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen and Prostate Biopsies in a Large Urology Group Practice Following Statement Revision.

Authors:  Kathleen F McGinley; Gregory C McMahon; Gordon A Brown
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2015

5.  Exnovation of Low Value Care: A Decade of Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening Practices.

Authors:  Julie Bynum; Honor Passow; Donald Carmichael; Jonathan Skinner
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2018-10-06       Impact factor: 5.562

Review 6.  Should Gleason 6 be labeled as cancer?

Authors:  Ibrahim Kulac; Michael C Haffner; Srinivasan Yegnasubramanian; Jonathan I Epstein; Angelo M De Marzo
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 2.309

7.  Influence of lifestyle and genetic variants in the aldo-keto reductase 1C3 rs12529 polymorphism in high-risk prostate cancer detection variability assessed between US and New Zealand cohorts.

Authors:  Nishi Karunasinghe; Stefan Ambs; Alice Wang; Wei Tang; Shuotun Zhu; Tiffany H Dorsey; Megan Goudie; Jonathan G Masters; Lynnette R Ferguson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Economic Evaluation of Urine-Based or Magnetic Resonance Imaging Reflex Tests in Men With Intermediate Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels in the United States.

Authors:  Boshen Jiao; Roman Gulati; Nathaniel Hendrix; John L Gore; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Todd M Morgan; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2021-04-22       Impact factor: 5.101

9.  Prostate Cancer Immunotherapy: Exploiting the HLA Class II Pathway in Vaccine Design.

Authors:  Bently P Doonan; Azizul Haque
Journal:  J Clin Cell Immunol       Date:  2015-08-26

10.  Changes observed in prostate biopsy practices in an inner city hospital with a high risk patient population following the 2012 uspstf psa screening recommendations.

Authors:  Andrew W Tam; Johnathan Khusid; Igor Inoyatov; Adan Z Becerra; Jonathan Davila; Jyoti D Chouhan; Jeffrey P Weiss; Llewellyn M Hyacinthe; Brian K McNeil; Andrew G Winer
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2018 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.541

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.