PURPOSE: We analyzed practice and referral patterns of primary care practitioners regarding the diagnosis of prostate cancer, and the evaluation and treatment of voiding dysfunction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous multiple-choice questionnaire was mailed to all primary care practitioners in Brooklyn, New York who were registered with the Medical Society of the State of New York. RESULTS: More than 25% of primary care practitioners begin performing digital rectal examination after patient age 55 years. Compared to prostate specific antigen (PSA) 59% of practitioners believe that digital rectal examination is more sensitive or that the tests are equal, or they do not know. In regard to PSA 11% of respondents begin testing after patient age 60 years, 11% evaluate PSA only if digital rectal examination is abnormal and greater than 3% never evaluate PSA. Approximately 45% of primary care practitioners indicated that PSA of greater than 4.0 ng./ml. signifies prostate cancer regardless of patient age, prostate size or prostatis and 50% think that digital rectal examination elevates PSA in a clinically significant way. Although 93.2% of respondents refer a patient to a urologist after palpating a prostatic nodule, only 51.1% refer for an area of induration. Of the 47.2% of respondents who attempt pharmacotherapy for voiding dysfunction with finasteride, terazosin or both 15% do not know the agent mechanisms of action. Of those prescribing finasteride 68.6% are not aware of its effects on serum PSA. Overall 66.5% of primary care practitioners are not familiar with the American Urological Association Symptom Index while only 15% of those attempting pharmacotherapy use the index as a diagnostic tool. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practitioners might require further education in regard to the use of PSA, digital rectal examination and pharmacotherapy in voiding dysfunction. Consideration should be given to the establishment of guidelines for urological referral.
PURPOSE: We analyzed practice and referral patterns of primary care practitioners regarding the diagnosis of prostate cancer, and the evaluation and treatment of voiding dysfunction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous multiple-choice questionnaire was mailed to all primary care practitioners in Brooklyn, New York who were registered with the Medical Society of the State of New York. RESULTS: More than 25% of primary care practitioners begin performing digital rectal examination after patient age 55 years. Compared to prostate specific antigen (PSA) 59% of practitioners believe that digital rectal examination is more sensitive or that the tests are equal, or they do not know. In regard to PSA 11% of respondents begin testing after patient age 60 years, 11% evaluate PSA only if digital rectal examination is abnormal and greater than 3% never evaluate PSA. Approximately 45% of primary care practitioners indicated that PSA of greater than 4.0 ng./ml. signifies prostate cancer regardless of patient age, prostate size or prostatis and 50% think that digital rectal examination elevates PSA in a clinically significant way. Although 93.2% of respondents refer a patient to a urologist after palpating a prostatic nodule, only 51.1% refer for an area of induration. Of the 47.2% of respondents who attempt pharmacotherapy for voiding dysfunction with finasteride, terazosin or both 15% do not know the agent mechanisms of action. Of those prescribing finasteride 68.6% are not aware of its effects on serum PSA. Overall 66.5% of primary care practitioners are not familiar with the American Urological Association Symptom Index while only 15% of those attempting pharmacotherapy use the index as a diagnostic tool. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practitioners might require further education in regard to the use of PSA, digital rectal examination and pharmacotherapy in voiding dysfunction. Consideration should be given to the establishment of guidelines for urological referral.
Authors: Roelf J C Norg; Kees van de Beek; Piet J M Portegijs; C P Onno van Schayck; J André Knottnerus Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: S Lebentrau; M May; O Maurer; M Schostak; M Lehsnau; T Ecke; S Al-Dumaini; S Hallmann; A M Ahmed; V Braun; A Haferkamp; R M Bauer; C G Stief; D Baumunk; B Hoschke; H-P Braun; C Schäfer; M Hipp; J Maurer; K-P Braun; I Wolff; S Brookman-May; C Gilfrich Journal: Urologe A Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Saskia Van der Meer; Sabine A M Löwik; Willem H Hirdes; Rien M Nijman; Klaas Van der Meer; Josette E H M Hoekstra-Weebers; Marco H Blanker Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 2.497