Abstract
Purposes: Despite recommendations against prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests, about one-fourth of men age ≥40 years received PSA tests in 2015. This study aimed to answer 3 questions for men who had a PSA test in the past year: (1) What percentage of these men received the test first suggested by physicians? (2) What factors were associated with physician-initiated PSA testing (PIPT) versus patient/someone else-initiated testing? (3) What percentage of patients ever had shared decision-making when tests were initiated by physicians?
Methods: We analyzed the 2000 and 2015 National Health Interview Survey data. We calculated age-standardized prevalence of PIPT for both years. For 2015, we used logistic regression to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios for PIPT. We also calculated the prevalence of ever discussing both advantages and disadvantages.
Results: The age-standardized prevalence of PIPT was significantly higher in 2015 (84.9%) than in 2000 (72.3%). In 2015, nearly 90% of PSA screenings for men aged ≥70 years were suggested by physicians. PIPT was positively associated with 2 or more comorbid conditions and number of patient visits to the doctor. Less than one-third of men reported they had ever participated in a discussion of advantages and disadvantages of PSA testing.
Conclusions: The majority of men who had PSA testing in the past year reported that their physicians were the first to suggest testing, including men aged ≥70 years. Our study also points to the challenges and needs in conducting shared decision-making before PSA testing in clinical practice.
- Decision Making
- Early Detection of Cancer
- Logistic Regression
- Prevalence
- Prostate Cancer
- Prostate-Specific Antigen
Despite recommendations against prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests, approximately one-fourth of men age ≥40 years received PSA tests in 2015.1 Many organizations, including the US Preventive Task Force (USPSTF), recommend that health care providers and their patients use shared decision-making (SDM), including discussion of benefits and harms of the test, before ordering it.1 This study aimed to answer 3 questions for men who had a PSA test in the past year: (1) What percentage of these men received the test first suggested by physicians? (2) What factors were associated with physician-initiated PSA testing (PIPT) versus patient/someone else-initiated testing? (3) What percentage of patients ever had SDM when tests were initiated by physicians?
Methods
We analyzed 2000 and 2015 National Health Interview Survey data. The overall National Health Interview Survey adult sample response rates were 72.1% (2000) and 55.2% (2015). Our analyses included male respondents aged ≥40 years who reported PSA testing as part of a routine examination in the past year and excluded men with PSA tests for other purposes or prostate cancer history. Our analyses included 1646 men from the year 2000 and 2024 men from 2015. We calculated age-standardized prevalence of PIPT for both years. For 2015, we used logistic regression to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios for PIPT. We also calculated the prevalence of ever discussing both advantages and disadvantages. We used SUDAAN 10 software (RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC) to account for the sampling design.
Results
The age-standardized prevalence of PIPT was significantly higher in 2015 (84.9%) than in 2000 (72.3%) (P < .01). In 2015, among men aged ≥70 years who received a PSA screening test, nearly 90% reported that it was first suggested by a physician (Table 1). PIPT was positively associated with 2 or more comorbid conditions and number of patient visits to the doctor, but inversely associated with prostate cancer family history (data not shown). Up to one-third of men who were screened reported that they had ever participated in a discussion of advantages and disadvantages of PSA testing (Table 2); SDM was slightly higher with PIPT (32% vs 25% for initiation by the patient/someone else), but not significantly so (P = .06).
Age-Standardized* Prevalence of Physician-Initiated Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing by Sociodemographic and Screening-Related Factors Among Men Aged 40 Years and Older Who Had the Test in the Past Year, National Health Interview Survey, 2000 and 2015
Prevalence of Ever Discussed Both Advantages and Disadvantages of Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing Among Men Aged 40 Years and Older Who Had the Test Within the Past Year, National Health Interview Survey, 2015
Discussion
In 2000 and 2015, more than 70% of men who underwent PSA testing in the past year reported that their physicians were the first to suggest testing. Conflicting recommendations regarding PSA testing might have contributed to that high prevalence.1 Other factors might include physician beliefs about PSA screening effectiveness, perceived community standard of care, and malpractice concerns.2 Medicare reimbursement for annual PSA testing might contribute to the willingness of physicians to propose or support testing.
PIPT is positively associated with 2 or more comorbid conditions and the number of patient encounters with clinicians. More patient encounters may increase a clinician's opportunity to suggest the test. This study suggests that men with prostate cancer family history are more likely to first suggest PSA testing. In 2017, the US Preventive Task Force released draft recommendations, instead of against screening among men of all ages, calling for individualized decision making after discussion of potential benefits and harms of PSA testing among men aged 55 years to 69 years.3 In our study, more than two-thirds of men who were screened reported that they had never discussed advantages and disadvantages of PSA testing with physicians, a finding consistent with previous reports.4,5 These results point to the challenges and needs in conducting SDM in clinical practice.
Limitations of our study include self-reported data (which may be less accurate than medical records), results that may not be representative of nonrespondents, and lack of details on the relationship to the patient when “someone else requested the test.”
Notes
This article was externally peer reviewed.
Funding: none.
Conflict of interest: none declared.
Disclosure: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute.
To see this article online, please go to: http://jabfm.org/content/31/4/658.full.
- Received for publication November 27, 2017.
- Revision received February 1, 2018.
- Accepted for publication February 13, 2018.