Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Clinical Research

PSA screening: determinants of primary-care physician practice patterns

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 15, pages 189–194 (2012)Cite this article

A Corrigendum to this article was published on 15 May 2012

Abstract

Background:

The effect of practice guidelines and the European Randomised Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) trials on PSA screening practices of primary-care physicians (PCPs) is unknown.

Methods:

We conducted a national cross-sectional on-line survey of a random sample of 3010 PCPs from July to August 2010. Participants were queried about their knowledge of prostate cancer, PSA screening guidelines, the ERSPC and PLCO trials, and about their PSA screening practices. Factors associated with PSA screening were identified using multivariable linear regression.

Results:

A total of 152 (5%) participants opened and 89 completed the on-line survey, yielding a response rate of 58% for those that viewed the invitation. Eighty percent of respondents correctly identified prostate cancer risk factors. In all, 51% and 64% reported that they discuss and order PSA screening for men aged 50–75 years, respectively. Fifty-four percent were most influenced by the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines. Also, 21% and 28% of respondents stated that their PSA screening practices were influenced by the ERSPC and PLCO trials, respectively. Medical specialty was the only variable associated with propensity to screen, with family medicine physicians more likely to use PSA screening than internists (β=0.21, P=0.02).

Conclusions:

Half of the physicians surveyed did not routinely discuss PSA screening with eligible patients. The impact of the ERSPC and PLCO trials on PSA screening practices was low among US PCPs. USPSTF recommendations for PSA screening continue to be the strongest influence on PCPs' propensity to use PSA screening.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Albertsen PC, Fryback DG, Storer BE, Kolon TF, Fine J . Long-term survival among men with conservatively treated localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1995; 274: 626–631.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Hilton JF, Reese AC, Zaid HB, Porten SP et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 29: 228–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dall'Era MA, Carroll PR . Outcomes and follow-up strategies for patients on active surveillance. Curr Opin Urol 2009; 19: 258–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1320–1328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb III RL, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1310–1319.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Greene KL, Albertsen PC, Babaian RJ, Carter HB, Gann PH, Han M et al. Prostate specific antigen best practice statement: 2009 update. J Urol 2009; 182: 2232–2241.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wolf AM, Wender RC, Etzioni RB, Thompson IM, D'Amico AV, Volk RJ et al. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: update 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010; 60: 70–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lin K, Lipsitz R, Miller T, Janakiraman S . Benefits and harms of prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: an evidence update for the US Preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 2008; 149: 192–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kish L . Survey Sampling. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Tasian GE, Yiee JH, Copp HL . Imaging use and cryptorchidism: determinants of practice patterns. J Urol 2011; 185: 1882–1887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Thompson IM, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Miller GJ, Ford LG et al. The influence of finasteride on the development of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 215–224.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tasian GE, Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Keyashian K, Greene KL, Daniels NA et al. Prostate specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: knowledge of, attitudes towards, and utilization among primary care physicians. Urol Oncol; e-pub ahead of print 25 August 2010.

  13. Hall IJ, Taylor YJ, Ross LE, Richardson LC, Richards TB, Rim SH . Discussions about prostate cancer screening between US. Primary care physicians and their patients. J Gen Intern Med 2011; 26: 1098–1104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Harris R, Lohr KN . Screening for prostate cancer: an update of the evidence for the US Preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 917–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kim HL, Benson DA, Stern SD, Gerber GS . Practice trends in the management of prostate disease by family practice physicians and general internists: an internet-based survey. Urology 2002; 59: 266–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zeliadt SB, Hoffman RM, Etzioni R, Gore JL, Kessler LG, Lin DW . Influence of publication of US and European prostate cancer screening trials on PSA testing practices. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103: 520–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hamilton RJ, Kahwati LC, Kinsinger LS . Knowledge and use of finasteride for the prevention of prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010; 19: 2164–2171.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Berrow D, Humphrey C, Hayward J . Understanding the relation between research and clinical policy: a study of clinicians' views. Qual Health Care 1997; 6: 181–186.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, Haggman M, Andersson SO, Bratell S et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 1977–1984.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Screening for prostate cancer. US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2008; 149: 185–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wilt TJ . The VA/NCI/AHRQ CSP#407: Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT): main results from a randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful waiting in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. American Urological Associan Annual Meeting, May 17, 2011, Washington, DC.

  22. Cull WL, O'Connor KG, Sharp S, Tang SF . Response rates and response bias for 50 surveys of pediatricians. Health Serv Res 2005; 40: 213–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA . Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 1129–1136.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by a California Urological Foundation grant awarded to Dr Tasian.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (work conducted while at the University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA), Philadelphia, PA, USA

    G E Tasian

  2. Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA

    M R Cooperberg, J E Cowan, K L Greene, P R Carroll & J M Chan

  3. UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA

    M R Cooperberg & P R Carroll

  4. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA

    M B Potter

  5. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA

    J M Chan

Authors
  1. G E Tasian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M R Cooperberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M B Potter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J E Cowan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. K L Greene
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P R Carroll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. J M Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J M Chan.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Dr Cooperberg is a consultant for Amgen, Dendreon, and Centocor Ortho Biotech and has received honoraria from Takeda and Abbott Pharmaceuticals. Dr Carroll is a consultant for Myriad. These companies did not have a role in the conception, design or interpretation of this study. Drs Tasian, Potter, Greene, and Chan and Ms Janet Cowan declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Supplementary Information accompanies the paper on the Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases website

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tasian, G., Cooperberg, M., Potter, M. et al. PSA screening: determinants of primary-care physician practice patterns. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 15, 189–194 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2011.59

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2011.59

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links