Prostate specific antigen testing policy worldwide varies greatly and seems not to be in accordance with guidelines: a systematic review

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing is widely used, but guidelines on follow-up are unclear.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine follow-up policy after PSA testing by general practitioners (GPs) and non-urologic hospitalists, the use of a cut-off value for this policy, the reasons for repeating a PSA test after an initial normal result, the existence of a general cut-off value below which a PSA result is considered normal, and the time frame for repeating a test.

Data sources. MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo and the Cochrane library from January 1950 until May 2011.

Study eligibility criteria. Studies describing follow-up policy by GPs or non-urologic hospitalists after a primary PSA test, excluding urologists and patients with prostate cancer. Studies written in Dutch, English, French, German, Italian or Spanish were included. Excluded were studies describing follow-up policy by urologists and follow-up of patients with prostate cancer. The quality of each study was structurally assessed.

Results

Fifteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Three studies were of high quality. Follow-up differed greatly both after a normal and an abnormal PSA test result. Only one study described the reasons for not performing follow-up after an abnormal PSA result.

Conclusions

Based on the available literature, we cannot adequately assess physicians’ follow-up policy after a primary PSA test. Follow-up after a normal or raised PSA test by GPs and non-urologic hospitalists seems to a large extent not in accordance with the guidelines.

Related collections

Most cited references 24

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial.

Gerald Andriole, E David Crawford, Robert L Grubb … (2009)

The effect of screening with prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) testing and digital rectal examination on the rate of death from prostate cancer is unknown. This is the first report from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial on prostate-cancer mortality. From 1993 through 2001, we randomly assigned 76,693 men at 10 U.S. study centers to receive either annual screening (38,343 subjects) or usual care as the control (38,350 subjects). Men in the screening group were offered annual PSA testing for 6 years and digital rectal examination for 4 years. The subjects and health care providers received the results and decided on the type of follow-up evaluation. Usual care sometimes included screening, as some organizations have recommended. The numbers of all cancers and deaths and causes of death were ascertained. In the screening group, rates of compliance were 85% for PSA testing and 86% for digital rectal examination. Rates of screening in the control group increased from 40% in the first year to 52% in the sixth year for PSA testing and ranged from 41 to 46% for digital rectal examination. After 7 years of follow-up, the incidence of prostate cancer per 10,000 person-years was 116 (2820 cancers) in the screening group and 95 (2322 cancers) in the control group (rate ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16 to 1.29). The incidence of death per 10,000 person-years was 2.0 (50 deaths) in the screening group and 1.7 (44 deaths) in the control group (rate ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.70). The data at 10 years were 67% complete and consistent with these overall findings. After 7 to 10 years of follow-up, the rate of death from prostate cancer was very low and did not differ significantly between the two study groups. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002540.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society

0 comments Cited 558 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Prostate specific antigen best practice statement: 2009 update.

Kirsten Greene, Peter C Albertsen, Richard Babaian … (2009)

We provide current information on the use of PSA testing for the evaluation of men at risk for prostate cancer, and the risks and benefits of early detection. The report is a summary of the American Urological Association PSA Best Practice Policy 2009. The summary statement is based on a review of the current professional literature, clinical experience and the expert opinions of a multispecialty panel. It is intended to serve as a resource for physicians, other health care professionals, and patients. It does not establish a fixed set of guidelines, define the legal standard of care or pre-empt physician judgment in individual cases. There are two notable differences in the current policy. First, the age for obtaining a baseline PSA has been lowered to 40 years. Secondly, the current policy no longer recommends a single, threshold value of PSA, which should prompt prostate biopsy. Rather, the decision to proceed to prostate biopsy should be based primarily on PSA and DRE results, but should take into account multiple factors including free and total PSA, patient age, PSA velocity, PSA density, family history, ethnicity, prior biopsy history and comorbidities. Although recently published trials show different results regarding the impact of prostate cancer screening on mortality, both suggest that prostate cancer screening leads to overdetection and overtreatment of some patients. Therefore, men should be informed of the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening before biopsy and the option of active surveillance in lieu of immediate treatment for certain men diagnosed with prostate cancer.

0 comments Cited 65 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Prevalence of erectile dysfunction: a systematic review of population-based studies.

J. Prins, M H Blanker, A. Bohnen … (2002)

A systematic review was conducted on the prevalence of erectile dysfunction (ED) in the general population. Studies were retrieved which reported prevalence rates of ED in the general population. Using a specially developed criteria list, the methodological quality of these studies was assessed and data on prevalence rates were extracted. We identified 23 studies from Europe (15), USA (5), Asia (2) and Australia (1). On our 12-item criteria list, the methodological quality ranged from 5 to 12. The prevalence of ED ranged from 2% in men younger than 40 y to 86% in men 80 y and older. Comparison between prevalence data is hampered by major methodological differences between studies, particularly in the use of various questionnaires and different definitions of ED. We stress the importance of providing all necessary information when reporting on the prevalence of ED. Moreover, international studies should be conducted to establish the true prevalence of ED across countries.

0 comments Cited 60 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Fam Pract

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Fam Pract

Title: BMC Family Practice

Publisher: BioMed Central

ISSN (Electronic): 1471-2296

Publication date Collection: 2012

Publication date (Electronic): 11 October 2012

Volume: 13

Page: 100

Affiliations

[1 ]Isala clinics, Department of Urology, Groot Wezenland 20, 8011, JW, Zwolle, The Netherlands

[2 ]Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, P.O.Box 30.001, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands

[3 ]Department of Urology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, P.O.Box 30.001, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands

[4 ]University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Psychosocial services Hanzeplein 1, P.O.Box 30.001, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands

Article

Publisher ID: 1471-2296-13-100

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2296-13-100

PMC ID: 3528621

PubMed ID: 23052017

SO-VID: 403fa5d7-3f1e-45b2-9865-e9513acf8d39

License:

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Prostate specific antigen testing policy worldwide varies greatly and seems not to be in accordance with guidelines: a systematic review

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Related collections

HIV Self-Testing

Most cited references 24

Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial.

Prostate specific antigen best practice statement: 2009 update.

Prevalence of erectile dysfunction: a systematic review of population-based studies.

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 78

Cited by 6

Most referenced authors 736