Austin Health

Title
Prostate cancer screening in Primary Health Care: the current state of affairs.
Publication Date
2015-02-13
Author(s)
Ranasinghe, Weranja Kb
Kim, Simon P
Papa, Nathan P
Sengupta, Shomik
Frydenberg, Mark
Bolton, Damien M
Pond, Dimity
Ried, Karin
Marshall, Melanie J
Persad, Raj
Lawrentschuk, Nathan
Type of document
Journal Article
DOI
10.1186/s40064-015-0819-8
Abstract
This 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.
Link
Citation
Springerplus 2015; 4(): 78
Jornal Title
SpringerPlus

Files:

NameSizeformatDescriptionLink
25713765.pdf 453.273 KB application/pdf View document