The times they are a-changin’: The evolution of prostate cancer screening practices and beliefs among primary care physicians in Victoria, British Columbia

Authors

  • Jesse Spooner Department of Urology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
  • Manjot Birk Island Medical Program, University of British Columbia
  • Victor Espionsa Island Health Dept. of Research and Capacity
  • Nathan Hoag University of British Columbia Dept. of Urology

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.6680

Keywords:

Oncology-Prostate, Prostate Specific Antigen, Prostatectomy, DRE, Screening, Guidelines

Abstract

Introduction: Prostate cancer screening practices remain controversial among primary care practitioners (PCPs). Inconsistent guidelines and publication of large prostate cancer screening trials have failed to provide definitive guidance. This study investigates the evolution of prostate cancer screening practices and beliefs over 12 years, in Victoria, British Columbia.

Methods: Questionnaires were delivered to 119 randomly selected PCPs in 2019. Descriptive analysis together with exploratory graphs and Pearson Chi-squared test for independence was calculated. The 2008 data was compared by determining if their value fell within the 2019 data’s 95% confidence interval.

Results: Response rate was 69.8% (83/119); 30.1% of PCPs reported regularly screening asymptomatic men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and 37.3% reported regularly performing digital rectal exam (DRE). The combination of PSA and DRE was the most used (48.2 %) screening modality. Most (73.5%) reported that guidelines influence their screening practices, with the most popular choice being those published by The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTF) (32.5%).

Conclusions: The results demonstrate a movement away from prostate cancer screening among PCPs when compared to 2008. PCPs believe that DRE and PSA are less valuable as screening tools and that there is insufficient evidence to support their use. The most used initial screening modality was the combination of PSA/DRE, however, we found a decrease in their use between the two study periods. Clinical guidelines continue to influence PCPs screening practices, but the shift of more PCPs following the CTF guidelines since 2008 has likely led to the reciprocal decrease in prostate cancer screening.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2020-11-17

How to Cite

Spooner, J., Birk, M. ., Espionsa, V., & Hoag, N. (2020). The times they are a-changin’: The evolution of prostate cancer screening practices and beliefs among primary care physicians in Victoria, British Columbia. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 15(6), 192–6. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.6680

Issue

Vol. 15 No. 6 (2021): CUAJ June

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.