Kevin Koo1,2, Elias S Hyams3. 1. Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA. kkoo@jhmi.edu. 2. Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. kkoo@jhmi.edu. 3. Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To delineate the range of "risk thresholds" for prostate biopsy to determine how improved prostate cancer (CaP) risk prediction tools may impact shared decision-making (SDM). METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey study involving men 45-75 years old attending a multispecialty urology clinic. Data included demographics, personal and family prostate cancer history, and prostate biopsy history. Respondents were presented with a summary of the details, risks, and benefits of prostate biopsy, then asked to indicate the specific risk threshold (% chance) of high-grade CaP at which they would proceed with prostate biopsy. RESULTS: Of a total of 103 respondents, 18 men (17%) had a personal history of CaP, and 31 (30%) had undergone prostate biopsy. The median risk threshold to proceed with prostate biopsy was 25% (interquartile range 10-50%). Risk thresholds did not vary by race, education, or employment. Personal history of CaP or prostate biopsy was significantly associated with lower mean risk thresholds (19% vs. 32% [P = 0.02] and 23% vs. 33% [P = 0.04], respectively). In the lowest versus highest risk threshold quartiles, there were significantly higher rates of CaP (36% vs. 1%, P = 0.01) and prior prostate biopsy (46% vs. 17%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Men have a wide range of risk thresholds for high-grade CaP to proceed with prostate biopsy. Men with a prior history of CaP or biopsy reported lower risk thresholds, which may reflect their greater concern for this disease. The extent to which refined risk prediction tools will improve SDM warrants further study.
PURPOSE: To delineate the range of "risk thresholds" for prostate biopsy to determine how improved prostate cancer (CaP) risk prediction tools may impact shared decision-making (SDM). METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey study involving men 45-75 years old attending a multispecialty urology clinic. Data included demographics, personal and family prostate cancer history, and prostate biopsy history. Respondents were presented with a summary of the details, risks, and benefits of prostate biopsy, then asked to indicate the specific risk threshold (% chance) of high-grade CaP at which they would proceed with prostate biopsy. RESULTS: Of a total of 103 respondents, 18 men (17%) had a personal history of CaP, and 31 (30%) had undergone prostate biopsy. The median risk threshold to proceed with prostate biopsy was 25% (interquartile range 10-50%). Risk thresholds did not vary by race, education, or employment. Personal history of CaP or prostate biopsy was significantly associated with lower mean risk thresholds (19% vs. 32% [P = 0.02] and 23% vs. 33% [P = 0.04], respectively). In the lowest versus highest risk threshold quartiles, there were significantly higher rates of CaP (36% vs. 1%, P = 0.01) and prior prostate biopsy (46% vs. 17%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Men have a wide range of risk thresholds for high-grade CaP to proceed with prostate biopsy. Men with a prior history of CaP or biopsy reported lower risk thresholds, which may reflect their greater concern for this disease. The extent to which refined risk prediction tools will improve SDM warrants further study.
Authors: H Ballentine Carter; Peter C Albertsen; Michael J Barry; Ruth Etzioni; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Lynn Greene; Lars Holmberg; Philip Kantoff; Badrinath R Konety; Mohammad Hassan Murad; David F Penson; Anthony L Zietman Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andrew Vickers; Angel Cronin; Monique Roobol; Caroline Savage; Mari Peltola; Kim Pettersson; Peter T Scardino; Fritz Schröder; Hans Lilja Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Donna P Ankerst; Andreas Boeck; Stephen J Freedland; J Stephen Jones; Angel M Cronin; Monique J Roobol; Jonas Hugosson; Michael W Kattan; Eric A Klein; Freddie Hamdy; David Neal; Jenny Donovan; Dipen J Parekh; Helmut Klocker; Wolfgang Horninger; Amine Benchikh; Gilles Salama; Arnauld Villers; Daniel M Moreira; Fritz H Schröder; Hans Lilja; Andrew J Vickers; Ian M Thompson Journal: World J Urol Date: 2012-04-22 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Marianne Schmid; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Markus Graefen; Margit Fisch; Felix K Chun; Jens Hansen Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-05-14 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: A Gupta; M J Roobol; C J Savage; M Peltola; K Pettersson; P T Scardino; A J Vickers; F H Schröder; H Lilja Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-07-27 Impact factor: 7.640