Effects of False-Positive Prostate Cancer Screening Results on Subsequent Prostate Cancer Screening Behavior

Objectives: Little is known about screening behavior following a false-positive prostate cancer screening result, which we have defined as a screening result with “abnormal/suspicious” labeling that did not result in a prostate cancer diagnosis within 14 months. The purpose of this analysis was to e...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention biomarkers & prevention, 2005-01, Vol.14 (1), p.190-194
Hauptverfasser: FORD, Marvella E, HAVSTAD, Suzanne L, DEMERS, Ray, JOHNSON, Christine Cole
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives: Little is known about screening behavior following a false-positive prostate cancer screening result, which we have defined as a screening result with “abnormal/suspicious” labeling that did not result in a prostate cancer diagnosis within 14 months. The purpose of this analysis was to examine whether age, race, education, or previous false-positive prostate cancer screening results via prostate-specific antigen or digital rectal exam predict decision to obtain subsequent prostate cancer screening. Methods: Data were drawn from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. The study sample consisted of 2,290 older men (mean age, 62.8 years; range, 55-75 years) who had false-positive ( n = 318) or negative ( n = 1,972) prostate-specific antigen or digital rectal exam baseline prostate cancer screening results. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the effect of false-positive results on subsequent prostate cancer screening behavior, adjusting for all covariates. Results: The multivariable model showed that being African American ( P = 0.016), and having a high school education or less ( P = 0.007), having a previous false-positive prostate cancer screening result ( P < 0.001), were predictive of not returning for prostate cancer screening in the following screening trial year. Conclusion: The study results highlight the importance of shared decision making between patients and their providers regarding the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening, and follow-up options for abnormal prostate cancer screening results. Shared decision making may be especially important for African American men, whom prostate cancer disproportionately affects.
ISSN:1055-9965
1538-7755
DOI:10.1158/1055-9965.190.14.1