Literature DB >> 35236620

Number of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening tests in the last five years reported by men in the United States in 2010, 2015, and 2018.

Thomas B Richards1, Shifan Dai2, Simone C Gray3, Ingrid J Hall3, David A Siegel3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Longer intervals between prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests for routine prostate cancer screening can reduce the harms while maintaining the benefits of screening. Limited information has been published on PSA screening frequency. The purpose of this report is to describe the number of PSA tests in the last 5 years reported by men in the United States.
METHODS: Using data from National Health Interview Survey Cancer Control Supplements in 2010, 2015, and 2018, the number of PSA tests in the last 5 years reported by men ≥40 years was categorized as 4 to 5 PSA tests, 1 to 3 PSA tests, and no PSA tests. Logistic regression was used to calculate model-adjusted prevalence risk ratios (aPRs) for the number of PSA tests in the last 5 years, adjusting for age, racial-ethnic group, education, marital status, and health insurance.
RESULTS: The proportion of men aged ≥70 years who reported 4 to 5 PSA tests in the last 5 years decreased from 37.2% in 2010 to 31.1% in 2018, while the proportion reporting 1 to 3 PSA tests increased from 25.5% to 31.9%. In 2018, aPRs for 4 to 5 PSA tests vs. 1 to 3 PSA tests in the last 5 years were significantly higher among men aged 70 to 79 years than among men aged 55 to 69 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Men aged ≥70 years reported a small shift to less intense PSA testing between 2010 and 2018, but PSA testing intensity remained higher in men aged ≥70 years than in men aged 55 to 69 years. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer screening; Prostate cancer; Prostate specific antigen tests

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35236620      PMCID: PMC9081142          DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.01.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   2.954


  20 in total

1.  Screening for prostate cancer: recommendation and rationale.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-12-03       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 2.  Accuracy of self-reported cancer-screening histories: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Garth H Rauscher; Timothy P Johnson; Young Ik Cho; Jennifer A Walk
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-04-01       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Recent Patterns of Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing for Prostate Cancer Screening in the United States.

Authors:  Stacey A Fedewa; Elizabeth M Ward; Otis Brawley; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 21.873

4.  National evidence on the use of shared decision making in prostate-specific antigen screening.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; Sarah Kobrin; Nancy Breen; Djenaba A Joseph; Jun Li; Dominick L Frosch; Carrie N Klabunde
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2013 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.166

5.  Cancer screening rates in individuals with different life expectancies.

Authors:  Trevor J Royce; Laura H Hendrix; William A Stokes; Ian M Allen; Ronald C Chen
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 6.  Cancer screening in the United States, 2019: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening.

Authors:  Robert A Smith; Kimberly S Andrews; Durado Brooks; Stacey A Fedewa; Deana Manassaram-Baptiste; Debbie Saslow; Richard C Wender
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2019-03-15       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 7.  Prostate-specific Antigen Testing as Part of a Risk-Adapted Early Detection Strategy for Prostate Cancer: European Association of Urology Position and Recommendations for 2021.

Authors:  Hendrik Van Poppel; Monique J Roobol; Christopher R Chapple; James W F Catto; James N'Dow; Jens Sønksen; Arnulf Stenzl; Manfred Wirth
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2021-08-15       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Screening for prostate cancer: a guidance statement from the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians.

Authors:  Amir Qaseem; Michael J Barry; Thomas D Denberg; Douglas K Owens; Paul Shekelle
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Examining primary care physician rationale for not following geriatric choosing wisely recommendations.

Authors:  Theresa A Rowe; Tiffany Brown; Jason N Doctor; Jeffrey A Linder; Stephen D Persell
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2021-05-15       Impact factor: 2.497

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.