BACKGROUND: Most patients with prostate cancer are diagnosed with low-grade, localized disease and may not require definitive treatment. In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against prostate cancer screening to address overdetection and overtreatment. This study sought to determine the effect of guideline changes on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and initial diagnostic stage for prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A difference-in-differences analysis was conducted to compare changes in PSA screening (exposure) relative to cholesterol testing (control) after the 2012 USPSTF guideline changes, and chi-square test was used to determine whether there was a subsequent decrease in early-stage, low-risk prostate cancer diagnoses. Data were derived from a tertiary academic medical center's electronic health records, a national commercial insurance database (OptumLabs), and the SEER database for men aged ≥35 years before (2008-2011) and after (2013-2016) the guideline changes. RESULTS: In both the academic center and insurance databases, PSA testing significantly decreased for all men compared with the control. The greatest decrease was among men aged 55 to 74 years at the academic center and among those aged ≥75 years in the commercial database. The proportion of early-stage prostate cancer diagnoses (<T2) decreased across age groups at the academic center and in the SEER database. CONCLUSIONS: In primary care, PSA testing decreased significantly and fewer prostate cancers were diagnosed at an early stage, suggesting provider adherence to the 2012 USPSTF guideline changes. Long-term follow-up is needed to understand the effect of decreased screening on prostate cancer survival.
BACKGROUND: Most patients with prostate cancer are diagnosed with low-grade, localized disease and may not require definitive treatment. In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against prostate cancer screening to address overdetection and overtreatment. This study sought to determine the effect of guideline changes on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and initial diagnostic stage for prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A difference-in-differences analysis was conducted to compare changes in PSA screening (exposure) relative to cholesterol testing (control) after the 2012 USPSTF guideline changes, and chi-square test was used to determine whether there was a subsequent decrease in early-stage, low-risk prostate cancer diagnoses. Data were derived from a tertiary academic medical center's electronic health records, a national commercial insurance database (OptumLabs), and the SEER database for men aged ≥35 years before (2008-2011) and after (2013-2016) the guideline changes. RESULTS: In both the academic center and insurance databases, PSA testing significantly decreased for all men compared with the control. The greatest decrease was among men aged 55 to 74 years at the academic center and among those aged ≥75 years in the commercial database. The proportion of early-stage prostate cancer diagnoses (<T2) decreased across age groups at the academic center and in the SEER database. CONCLUSIONS: In primary care, PSA testing decreased significantly and fewer prostate cancers were diagnosed at an early stage, suggesting provider adherence to the 2012 USPSTF guideline changes. Long-term follow-up is needed to understand the effect of decreased screening on prostate cancer survival.
Authors: J L Stanford; Z Feng; A S Hamilton; F D Gilliland; R A Stephenson; J W Eley; P C Albertsen; L C Harlan; A L Potosky Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-01-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Tudor Borza; Samuel R Kaufman; Vahakn B Shahinian; Phyllis Yan; David C Miller; Ted A Skolarus; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Richard M Martin; Jenny L Donovan; Emma L Turner; Chris Metcalfe; Grace J Young; Eleanor I Walsh; J Athene Lane; Sian Noble; Steven E Oliver; Simon Evans; Jonathan A C Sterne; Peter Holding; Yoav Ben-Shlomo; Peter Brindle; Naomi J Williams; Elizabeth M Hill; Siaw Yein Ng; Jessica Toole; Marta K Tazewell; Laura J Hughes; Charlotte F Davies; Joanna C Thorn; Elizabeth Down; George Davey Smith; David E Neal; Freddie C Hamdy Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: A L Potosky; J Legler; P C Albertsen; J L Stanford; F D Gilliland; A S Hamilton; J W Eley; R A Stephenson; L C Harlan Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-10-04 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Philip V Barbosa; I-Chun Thomas; Sandy Srinivas; Mark K Buyyounouski; Benjamin I Chung; Glenn M Chertow; Steven M Asch; Todd H Wagner; James D Brooks; John T Leppert Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Marco Zappa; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Liisa Määttänen; Hans Lilja; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Paez; Chris H Bangma; Sigrid Carlsson; Donella Puliti; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Matti Hakama; Ulf-Hakan Stenman; Paula Kujala; Kimmo Taari; Gunnar Aus; Andreas Huber; Theo H van der Kwast; Ron H N van Schaik; Harry J de Koning; Sue M Moss; Anssi Auvinen Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Selen Bozkurt; Christopher J Magnani; Martin G Seneviratne; James D Brooks; Tina Hernandez-Boussard Journal: Front Digit Health Date: 2022-06-02
Authors: Christopher J Magnani; Nicolas Bievre; Laurence C Baker; James D Brooks; Douglas W Blayney; Tina Hernandez-Boussard Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2020-12-10
Authors: Carlos Irwin A Oronce; A Mark Fendrick; Joseph A Ladapo; Catherine Sarkisian; John N Mafi Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kevin H Kensler; Claire H Pernar; Brandon A Mahal; Paul L Nguyen; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Adam S Kibel; Timothy R Rebbeck Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 13.506