Research articleDecision Making in Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening: National Health Interview Survey, 2000
Introduction
Prostate cancer is a common malignancy and a major cause of mortality in men in the United States. It accounts for one third of all diagnosed cancers in U.S. men, and represents the second most common cause of male cancer deaths, and the tenth leading cause of reduced life expectancy.1 In 2005, approximately 232,000 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and approximately 30,000 deaths from prostate cancer will occur.1 The prevalence and mortality burden of prostate cancer have driven widespread screening with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test.2
At the same time, however, PSA screening has remained controversial for several reasons. The PSA test itself has limited accuracy and predictive power,3, 4, 5 and leads to frequent false-positive and false-negative results. Prostate cancer also has a heterogeneous, often indolent, natural history, raising questions about the value of early diagnosis by any means.6 The substantial gap between the estimated lifetime risk of developing occult prostate cancer in U.S. men (40% or higher) and the estimated lifetime mortality risk (approximately 3%)7 indicates that most cancers are slow-growing and nonfatal. Thus, prostate cancer screening might cause substantial overdiagnosis,4, 8 rather than real improvements in mortality or morbidity. Finally, the balance of benefits and harms of treating screening-detected prostate cancers is uncertain. Treatments such as radical prostatectomy may reduce prostate cancer mortality in men with early-stage disease9; however, the mortality benefit takes several years to be realized, at the cost of immediate iatrogenic harms that are difficult to estimate precisely, e.g., erectile dysfunction in 20% to 70% of patients and urinary incontinence in 2% to 45%.10
Until ongoing clinical trials are completed,11, 12, 13, 14 these questions about the value of PSA screening remain unresolved.10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Consequently, professional organizations, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force,10, 15 American Cancer Society,22 American College of Physicians–American Society of Internal Medicine,23 and the American Urological Association24 have issued PSA screening guidelines that reflect these uncertainties and vary somewhat in their specific recommendations. However, all of these guidelines advocate some form of individualized, rather than universal, PSA screening, and advise clinicians to inform and involve patients in decisions about screening. Several authors have argued that PSA screening should be undertaken only through processes of informed and shared decision making.25, 26, 27
The actual practice of PSA screening, however, does not appear to conform to these recommendations. Several studies have demonstrated significant gaps in men’s knowledge of PSA screening.28, 29, 30, 31 Other studies have shown that recipients of PSA screening are often unaware that they have had it—suggesting that the screening decision was made unilaterally by the physician.32, 33, 34, 35, 36 Furthermore, even when recipients of PSA screening are involved in the decision-making process, they do not always receive sufficient information to participate meaningfully.32, 34, 37
These findings are concerning, and highlight the need for further research to better understand the decision-making process in PSA screening. Past studies have had limited generalizability because of small sample sizes, homogeneous patient populations, and relatively low response rates. Furthermore, previous research has not fully explored the factors influencing PSA screening decisions. For example, the influence of patient sociodemographic characteristics on screening decisions has only begun to be examined. It is also unclear who is driving the demand for PSA screening—physicians or patients—although this factor might influence not only decisions to screen, but the extent to which decisions are informed and shared.38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46
In the current study, data from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) were used to examine the decision-making process regarding PSA screening. Focusing on PSA screening recipients in the U.S. population, analyses were performed to assess the extent to which screening was (1) initiated by physician versus patient, and (2) preceded by discussions about the advantages and disadvantages of the test. Patient characteristics associated with these outcomes were also explored, with the objective of determining the extent to which physician-initiated PSA screening involved appropriate candidates for screening and influenced the occurrence of prescreening physician–patient discussions.
Section snippets
Data Source
The NHIS, an annual health survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, is one of the principal sources of health information on the civilian, non-institutionalized population in the United States.47 Each annual survey collects information on respondents’ health, demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, and access to and use of health services. The surveys also contain annual supplements addressing particular health issues. In 2000, the NHIS was supplemented by the
Results
The characteristics of men aged 40 or older who underwent PSA screening (Table 1) reflect the patterns of PSA use previously described in the NHIS sample population.2 The majority of PSA screening recipients were aged 50 to 69, non-Hispanic white, and reported relatively high levels of education, income, access to health care, and general health.
Discussion
This study raises several important issues about decision making regarding PSA screening in U.S. men. The substantial proportion of PSA recipients whose screening was initiated by physicians corroborates past evidence of widespread physician support for routine PSA screening56, 57, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 and suggests that this screening is being driven primarily by physicians. In addition, the study provides evidence that physicians may not be appropriately individualizing PSA screening.
In this
References (121)
- et al.
Prostate-specific antigen test use reported in the 2000 National Health Interview Survey
Prev Med
(2004) - et al.
The prostate specific antigen era in the United States is over for prostate cancerwhat happened in the last 20 years?
J Urol
(2004) - et al.
Screening for prostate cancer
Lancet
(2003) Localised prostatic cancermanagement and detection issues
Lancet
(1994)- et al.
The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial of the National Cancer Institutehistory, organization, and status
Control Clin Trials
(2000) - et al.
The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Triala randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy versus expectant management for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer
J Urol
(1994) - et al.
Screening for prostate cancer. The challenge of promoting informed decision making in the absence of definitive evidence of effectiveness
Med Clin North Am
(1999) - et al.
Promoting informed decisions about cancer screening in communities and healthcare systems
Am J Prev Med
(2004) - et al.
Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention. A suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Am J Prev Med
(2004) - et al.
The accuracy of primary care patients’ self-reports of prostate-specific antigen testing
Am J Prev Med
(2002)
The validity of male patients’ self-reports regarding prostate cancer screening
Prev Med
Physician-patient discussions of controversial cancer screening tests
Am J Prev Med
Controversy in the detection of disease
Lancet
Ethical issues in risk factor intervention
Am J Med
The physician’s responsibility to the patient
Lancet
Prostate-specific antigen testing in black and white menan analysis of Medicare claims from 1991–1998
Urology
Prostate cancer screening trends of New York State men at least 50 years of age, 1994 to 1997
Prev Med
Prostate cancer screening and beliefs about treatment efficacya national survey of primary care physicians and urologists
Am J Med
Knowledge, beliefs, and prior screening behavior among blacks and whites reporting for prostate cancer screening
Urology
The knowledge and use of screening tests for colorectal and prostate cancerdata from the 1987 National Health Interview Survey
Prev Med
Sociodemographic and health status characteristics with prostate cancer screening in a national cohort of middle-aged male veterans
Urology
Cancer testing in South Australian menpractices and beliefs
Aust N Z J Public Health
Prostate cancerdemographic and behavioral correlates of stage at diagnosis among blacks and whites in North Carolina
Urology
Attitudes and practices of primary care physicians for prostate cancer screening
Am J Prev Med
Prostate-specific antigen for prostate cancer screening. Do physician characteristics affect its use?
Am J Prev Med
Predictors of interest in prostate-specific antigen screening and the impact of informed consentwhat should we tell our patients?
Am J Med
Interacting with cancer patientsthe significance of physicians’ communication behavior
Soc Sci Med
Shared decision-making in the medical encounterwhat does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)
Soc Sci Med
Cancer facts and figures 2005
Prostate-specific antigena review of the validation of the most commonly used cancer biomarker
Cancer
Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter
N Engl J Med
Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screeningestimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer
J Natl Cancer Inst
Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer
N Engl J Med
Screening for prostate canceran update of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Ann Intern Med
The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Canceran update
Cancer
Large-scale randomized prostate cancer screening trialsprogram performances in the European Randomized Screening for Prostate Cancer trial and the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovary cancer trial
Int J Cancer
Screening for prostate cancerrecommendation and rationale
Ann Intern Med
Early detection of prostate cancer. Part I: prior probability and effectiveness of tests. The American College of Physicians
Ann Intern Med
Early detection of prostate cancer. Part II: estimating the risks, benefits, and costs. American College of Physicians
Ann Intern Med
Clinical practice. Prostate-specific-antigen testing for early diagnosis of prostate cancer
N Engl J Med
Early detection and aggressive treatment of prostate cancergroping in the dark
J Gen Intern Med
Screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen. An examination of the evidence
N Engl J Med
American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer, 2005
CA Cancer J Clin
Screening for prostate cancer. American College of Physicians
Ann Intern Med
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) best practice policy. American Urological Association (AUA)
Oncology (Huntingt)
Informed decision makingwhat is its role in cancer screening?
Cancer
Informed consent for cancer screening with prostate-specific antigenhow well are men getting the message?
Am J Public Health
Public awareness of prostate cancer and the prostate-specific antigen test
Cancer Pract
Screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen testare patients making informed decisions?
J Fam Pract
Impact of undergoing prostate carcinoma screening on prostate carcinoma-related knowledge and distress
Cancer
Cited by (47)
Screening for Cervical, Prostate, and Breast Cancer: Interpreting the Evidence
2015, American Journal of Preventive MedicineRemaining life expectancy measurement and PSA screening of older men
2012, Journal of Geriatric OncologyCitation Excerpt :Physicians are more likely to initiate discussions about PSA tests than patients (including with older patients and those with more comorbidities), and these discussions can take place without a careful consideration of both the harms and benefits of the PSA test.46,47 Consequently, physician-initiated discussions, combined with poor communication regarding the overall utility of PSA screening tests, may lead to men who are very unlikely to receive benefit being tested.46,48 Other explanations for increased screening may include a response to patient preferences or a consequence of sicker patients being more accepting of additional tests.11
A community-based intervention to promote informed decision making for prostate cancer screening among Hispanic American men changed knowledge and role preferences: A cluster RCT
2011, Patient Education and CounselingCitation Excerpt :This finding may be related to low income [43] and/or to low health literacy [43]. In the 2000 National Health Interview Survey, approximately 34% of Hispanic men who had taken a screening PSA test did not report a discussion with their physician about the advantages and disadvantages of screening [42,45]. In the 2005 National Health Interview Survey, 35% of Hispanic men ages 50–79 years with no history of prostate cancer reported having had a PSA test for any reason within the past 2 years [2].
Recent patterns in shared decision making for prostate-specific antigen testing in the United States
2018, Annals of Family MedicineNational evidence on the use of shared decision making in prostate-specific antigen screening
2013, Annals of Family MedicineCitation Excerpt :PSA screening is common and associated with several factors, including physician recommendation, older age, higher education, and having a usual source of medical care. These findings reinforce concerns that PSA screening is often undertaken in men less likely to benefit from it and driven in part by access to health care.18,19 We showed that screening intensity is associated with shared decision making; it is greater with partial than with full or absent shared decision making (Table 3).
The Impact of Receipt of Information on Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing on Screening with the Prostate-Specific Antigen Test
2023, Journal of Cancer Education