Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorRanasinghe, Weranja Kben
dc.contributor.authorKim, Simon Pen
dc.contributor.authorPapa, Nathan Pen
dc.contributor.authorSengupta, Shomiken
dc.contributor.authorFrydenberg, Marken
dc.contributor.authorBolton, Damien Men
dc.contributor.authorPond, Dimityen
dc.contributor.authorRied, Karinen
dc.contributor.authorMarshall, Melanie Jen
dc.contributor.authorPersad, Rajen
dc.contributor.authorLawrentschuk, Nathan Len
dc.identifier.citationSpringerplus 2015; 4(): 78en
dc.description.abstractThis study aims to examine the current practice of General practitioners (GPs)/primary care physicians in opportunistic screening for prostate cancer (PC) by digital rectal examination(DRE) and Prostate Specific Antigen(PSA) testing and identify any difference in screening practice. Printed copies and/or electronic versions of a survey was distributed amongst 438 GPs throughout Australia in 2012. Statistical analyses (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Fisher's exact test or Pearson chi-square test)were performed by outcomes and GP characteristics.There were a total of 149 responses received (34%), with similar gender distribution in rural and metropolitan settings. 74% GPs believed PSA testing was at least 'somewhat effective' in reducing PC mortality with annual PSA screening being conducted by more GPs in the metropolitan setting compared to the rural GPs (35% vs 18.4%), while 25% of rural GPs would not advocate routine PSA screening. When examining the concordance between DRE and PSA testing by gender of GP, the male GPs reported performing PSA testing more frequently than DRE in patients between ages 40 to 69 (p = 0.011). Urology Society guidelines (77.2%) and College of GPs (73.2%) recommendations for PC screening were thought to be at least 'somewhat useful'. Although reference ranges for PSA tests were felt to be useful, the majority (65.8%) found it easier to refer to an urologist due to the disagreements in guidelines. In conclusion, the current guidelines for PSA screening appear to cause more confusion due to their conflicting advice, leaving GPs to formulate their own practice methods, calling for an urgent need for uniform collaborative guidelines.en
dc.titleProstate cancer screening in Primary Health Care: the current state of affairs.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Urology, Monash Medical Centre, 823-865 Centre Road, Bentleigh, Victoria 3165 Australia ; Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationUniversity of Melbourne, Dept of Surgery, Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Austin Hospital and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Dept of Surgical Oncology, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationUniversity of New South Wales, NSW (on behalf of PHReNet-GP, a Practice Based Research Network, University of New South Wales), Paddington, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationNational Institute of Integrative Medicine, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationUniversity of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Surgery, Austin Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationYale University; Department of Urology; Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, New Haven, Connecticut USA ; University Hospital Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Urology Institute, Cleveland, Ohio USAen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Urology, Monash Medical Centre, 823-865 Centre Road, Bentleigh, Victoria 3165 Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UKen
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
25713765.pdf442.65 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail

Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.