Prostate Cancer Screening: A Brief Tool to Incorporate Patient Preferences in a Clinical Encounter

Misra‐Hebert, Anita D.; Kattan, Michael W.

doi:10.3389/fonc.2016.00235

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(37 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the same study, patients did not receive consistent messaging relevant PSA screening uptake, including the understanding that a PSA screening is an individualized choice, not all doctors recommend PSA testing, and evidence on the effectiveness of a PSA screen to saves lives is inconclusive. To standardize relevant PSA screening messages between providers, a shared decision-making tool has the potential to aid patientprovider communication regarding the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening [23,24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of annual prostate-speciﬁc antigen (PSA) screening among black men: results from an urban community-based prostate cancer screening program

Lewis‐Thames

Khan

Hicks

et al. 2021

JOMH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objective: Black men have an increased risk of prostate cancer mortality compared with any racial or ethnic group. Further, research on prostate cancer prevention and control messaging focusing on Black men is limited. Community screening events are successful in attracting members from high-risk groups, like Black men, and are a valuable source to collect cancer screening and health promotion data. Therefore, the authors examined data of Black men attending a community-based PCa screening event to evaluate predictors of annual PCa screening, and identify sub-populations of Black men needing targeted cancer prevention messaging. Methods: Black men attending PCa screening events in St. Louis, MO 2007--2017 were eligible. Participants completed either a mail-in or on-site survey at the time of their screening to collect information on annual screening history. We analyzed sociodemographic factors, having a ﬁrst-degree relative with a history of PCa, healthcare utilization characteristics, and predictors of annual PSA screening. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association between predictors and annual PSA screening. Results: Data was analyzed from 447 respondents. One-third of the residents did not know their cancer family history status. Older age and having a primary healthcare provider predicted an annual prostate cancer after attending the PCa community screening event. In the fully adjusted model, all ages older than 45 years were 2--4 times more likely to have an annual PCa screening. Having a healthcare provider also predicted an annual PCa screening (OR: 4.59, 95% CI: 2.30--9.14). Conclusion: Regardless of sociodemographic and family history factors, older Black men and those with a primary physician are more likely to have an annual PSA screening. Cancer prevention promotion efforts for Black men should target mechanisms that facilitate family cancer history conversations to engage younger Black men. Also, additional health promotions efforts are needed to educate Black men without a primary healthcare provider.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of annual prostate-speciﬁc antigen (PSA) screening among black men: results from an urban community-based prostate cancer screening program

Lewis‐Thames

Khan

Hicks

et al. 2021

JOMH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Concomitantly, a measurement of serum prostatic specific antigen levels is performed which have about 21% and 64% sensitivity and specificity in earliest stages, respectively, and about 32% and 93% sensitivity and specificity in high grade prostate cancers, respectively. When combined with DRE, sensitivity and specificity increase from 51% to 68% and from 92% to 94%, respectively; however, this measurement can be affected by other factors beyond prostate cancer, such as ejaculation, bacterial prostatitis, biopsy, and acute urinary retention, which may elevate prostatic specific antigen levels …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

SVM for FT‐MIR prostate cancer classification: An alternative to the traditional methods

Siqueira

Morais

Júnior

et al. 2018

Journal of Chemometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, principal component analysis (PCA), successive projections algorithm (SPA), and genetic algorithm (GA) followed by support vector machines (SVM), combined with Fourier-transform mid-infrared (FT-MIR) spectroscopy were presented as complementary or alternatives tools to the traditional methods for prostate cancer screening and classification. These approaches were applied to analyze tissue samples, and their performances were compared within dependent SVM models and with traditional methods of diagnosis, according to class separation interpretability, time consumption, and figures of merit. The results showed that variable reduction and selection methods followed by SVM can reduce drawbacks of independent SVM analysis. The potential biomarkers indicated by PCA-SVM, SPA-SVM, and GA-SVM were amide I, II, and III; as well as protein regions (1400-1585 cm −1 ), followed by DNA/RNA (O-P-O symmetric stretch) (1080 cm −1 ) and DNA (O-P-O asymmetric stretch) (1230 cm −1 ) regions. GA-SVM was the best classification approach, with higher sensitivity (100%) and specificity (80%), particularly in early stages, being better than traditional methods of diagnosis. KEYWORDSFT-MIR, prostate cancer, SVM, tissue 1 | INTRODUCTION Currently, prostate cancer recognition follows some phases. First of all, the proctologist evaluates the prostate by Digital Rectal Examination (DRE), which allows palpation of only 40% to 50% of the prostate, and it is mainly affected by intraobserver and inter-observer variability, resulting in DRE sensitivity and specificity of about 21% to 37% and 71% to 91%, respectively. 1-5 Concomitantly, a measurement of serum prostatic specific antigen levels is performed which have about 21% and 64% sensitivity and specificity in earliest stages, respectively, and about 32% and 93% sensitivity and specificity in high grade prostate cancers, respectively. When combined with DRE, sensitivity and specificity increase from 51% to 68% and from 92% to 94%, respectively 1-8 ; however, this measurement can be affected by other factors beyond prostate cancer, such as ejaculation, bacterial prostatitis, biopsy, and acute urinary retention, which may elevate prostatic specific antigen levels. 3,[5][6][7][8] According to the results of these exams, a biopsy coupled with an anatomopathological examination can be indicated in order to identify cancer stage. Trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy is currently the gold standard, characterized by 39% to 52% sensitivity and 81% to 82% specificity. 9 The anatomopathological examination by Gleason score system classifies biopsy samples according to tumor aggressiveness and provides a prognostic idea. It defines Gleason 1 (best differentiation and most favorable prognosis) to Gleason 5 (least differentiation and poor prognosis). [10][11][12] The sum of the primary (most architectural atypia) and secondary (least architectural atypia) patterns leads to the Gleason score (eg, Gleason 3 + Gleason 4 is equivalent to a Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7). 12 In 2014, a new Gleaso...

show abstract

“…Controversy remains regarding optimal PCa screening strategies ( 3 ) and the ability to engage in these conversations in primary care settings ( 4 ) where many PCa screening conversations may occur. We previously created a 9-item brief tool for PCa screening conversations ( 5 ). The goal of the tool is to aid PCa screening discussions where the patient and provider can discuss the risks and benefits of PCa screening given a patient’s individual risk factor, health status, and preferences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing of a Tool for Prostate Cancer Screening Discussions in Primary Care

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAs prostate cancer (PCa) screening decisions often occur in outpatient primary care, a brief tool to help the PCa screening conversation in busy clinic settings is needed.MethodsA previously created 9-item tool to aid PCa screening discussions was tested in five diverse primary care clinics. Fifteen providers were recruited to use the tool for 4 weeks, and the tool was revised based upon feedback. The providers then used the tool with a convenience sample of patients during routine clinic visits. Pre- and post-visit surveys were administered to assess patients’ knowledge of the option to be screened for PCa and of specific factors to consider in the decision. McNemar’s and Stuart–Maxwell tests were used to compare pre-and post-survey responses.Results14 of 15 providers completed feedback surveys and had positive responses to the tool. All 15 providers then tested the tool on 95 men aged 40–69 at the five clinics with 2–10 patients each. The proportion of patients who strongly agreed that they had the option to choose to screen for PCa increased from 57 to 72% (p = 0.018) from the pre- to post-survey, that there are factors in the personal or family history that may affect PCa risk from 34 to 47% (p = 0.012), and that their opinions about possible side effects of treatment for PCa should be considered in the decision from 47 to 61% (p = 0.009).ConclusionA brief conversation tool for the PCa screening discussion was well received in busy primary-care settings and improved patients’ knowledge about the screening decision.

show abstract

Prostate Cancer Screening: A Brief Tool to Incorporate Patient Preferences in a Clinical Encounter

Cited by 5 publications

References 32 publications

Predictors of annual prostate-speciﬁc antigen (PSA) screening among black men: results from an urban community-based prostate cancer screening program

Predictors of annual prostate-speciﬁc antigen (PSA) screening among black men: results from an urban community-based prostate cancer screening program

SVM for FT‐MIR prostate cancer classification: An alternative to the traditional methods

Testing of a Tool for Prostate Cancer Screening Discussions in Primary Care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About