Prostatakarzinomfrüherkennung in Deutschland

Adherence to a risk-adapted screening strategy for prostate cancer: First results of the PROBASE trial

PROBASE is a population-based, randomized trial of 46 495 German men recruited at age 45 to compare effects of risk-adapted prostate cancer (PCa) screening starting either immediately at age 45, or at a deferred age of 50 years. Based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, men are classified into risk groups with different screening intervals: low-risk (<1.5 ng/ml, 5-yearly screening), intermediate-risk (1.5-2.99 ng/ml, 2 yearly), and high risk (>3 ng/ml, recommendation for immediate biopsy). Over the first 6 years of study participation, attendance rates to scheduled screening visits varied from 70.5% to 79.4%, depending on the study arm and risk group allocation, in addition 11.2% to 25.4% of men reported self-initiated PSA tests outside the PROBASE protocol. 38.5% of participants had a history of digital rectal examination or PSA testing prior to recruitment to PROBASE, frequently associated with family history of PCa. These men showed higher rates (33% to 57%, depending on subgroups) of self-initiated PSA testing in-between PROBASE screening rounds. In the high-risk groups (both arms), the biopsy acceptance rate was 64% overall, but was higher among men with screening PSA ≥4 ng/ml (>71%) and with PIRADS ≥3 findings upon multiparameter magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) (>72%), compared with men with PSA ≥3 to 4 ng/ml (57%) or PIRADS score ≤ 2 (59%). Overall, PROBASE shows good acceptance of a risk-adapted PCa screening strategy in Germany. Implementation of such a strategy should be accompanied by a well-structured communication, to explain not only the benefits but also the harms of PSA screening.

Religious Denomination, Religiosity, Religious Attendance, and Cancer Prevention. A Systematic Review

Recent research highlighted the influence of religion among health outcomes. To the best of our knowledge, there is no systematic review that summarizes the evidence on the relationship between religious factors and the utilization of cancer screenings. Therefore, this article aims to list the findings about the influence of religious denominations, the importance of religion in one’s life, and religious practices, such as church attendance on the utilization of cancer screenings. PubMed, PsycInfo and CINAHL were searched using a predefined algorithm in June 2020. We included observational studies that examined the association between religion and cancer screening use and employed appropriate items to quantify these key variables. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. We detected n=27 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Hereby, n=16 used data from the United States. Most of the studies that were included in our review found a positive association between religious attendance and cancer screening utilization. There was mixed evidence concerning religious denomination as well as religiosity and use of cancer screenings. The studies suggest that religious factors are related to the utilization of cancer screenings. The findings of this systematic review may be helpful to resolve the underuse of cancer screenings by revealing at-risk-groups.

Religion and cancer prevention: study protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Several studies explored a relationship between religiousness and the utilisation of cancer screenings, as religious people may obtain an increased social network or could have certain personality traits that enhance screening use. To the best of our knowledge, there is no systematic review that sums up the evidence gained from research on that relationship. Thus, our review aims to appraise the findings of observational studies regarding that relationship. Its findings may be useful in addressing specific target groups to increase ineffectively the low cancer screening rates.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Employing a predefined search algorithm, three online databases (CINAHL, PsycInfo and PubMed) will be searched. In addition, the bibliographies of the studies included in our review will be searched through manually and independently by two reviewers. We are looking for observational studies (both cross-sectional and longitudinal) which examine the association between religion and cancer screening utilisation. However, studies regarding specific samples (as ethnic minorities or religious sects) will be excluded. We expect that the studies examine various dimensions of religion, such as religious attendance or religious intensity. We will extract data that describe methodology, sample characteristics and the findings concerning our object of investigation. Moreover, a quality assessment will be performed. Two reviewers will independently select the studies, extract the data and assess the studies' quality. Disagreements will be dissolved by discussion or by inclusion of a third party. The findings will be presented narratively in text and tables. If possible, a meta-analysis will be carried out.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

As no primary data are collected, the approval from an ethics committee is not required. Our review will be published in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021229222.

Religious Attendance and Cancer Screening Behavior

Background: Cancer is one of the most important health problems worldwide. Preventive examinations proved to be effective in tackling that issue, but their degree of utilization is not adequate. Thus, research is making efforts to reveal its determinants. It has been shown that religion is associated with several health outcomes, so the aim of our study is to analyze the association between religious attendance and participation in cancer prevention.

Methods: Data are derived from the fifth wave of the German Aging Survey (DEAS), a nationally representative, prospective cohort study. Participants are community-dwelling Germans aged 40 years and older. Our main independent variable is the frequency of attendance in religious services, and the dependent variable is participation in cancer screening. As covariates, we include factors from all the dimensions of the Andersen behavioral health services utilization model. Multiple logistic regressions were used. In our sensitivity analysis, logistic regressions were performed stratified by religious group (Roman Catholic church, Protestant church, not belonging to any religious group).

Results: Our model shows that attendance in religious services once a week, one to three times a month, several times a year, or less often is significantly associated with an increased likelihood of participating in preventive cancer screening, more than never participating in religious services. Moreover, the sensitivity analysis reveals that all these associations remain significant for the Catholic subsample, but not for the Protestant or the non-religious group.

Discussion: This study finds a link between a higher frequency of attendance in religious services and an increased likelihood of participating in cancer screenings. This is important to address individuals at risk for underuse of cancer screenings.

[Practice of early detection of prostate cancer : Descriptive survey in preparation for the PSAInForm study]

BACKGROUND

The randomized controlled PSAInForm study aims to investigate the effects of a computer-based decision aid which informs men in the age group 55-69 years about advantages and disadvantages of PSA testing. In preparation for the study, the current PSA testing practice in the Münster district was assessed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The frequencies of early detection examinations, medically indicated PSA tests, and prostate biopsies in the Münster district were determined, using aggregated data from the regional association of Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) Physicians in Westfalen-Lippe. With anonymized laboratory data, the frequency of PSA tests in general and urological practices, and their distribution among the accounting categories SHI, individual health services, and invoices for privately insured patients were investigated.

RESULTS

In about half of more than 50,000 PSA tests, the accounting category could be determined; the rest could only be assigned to SHI or non-SHI services. The percentage of PSA tests that were performed due to reasons other than medically necessary SHI-reimbursed services was > 50% in each age group; it was highest in men younger than 55 years, and declined markedly with advanced age. More than half of the PSA tests that were likely due to opportunistic screening were performed outside the age group 55-69 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The percentage of PSA tests that were not carried out as SHI services was > 80% in general practices, and 60% in urological practices. These percentages decreased markedly with advancing age. Most of the PSA tests were performed outside the age group which can be considered as the target group for an effective PSA screening according to the results of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC).

The readiness of German GPs to recommend and conduct cancer screening is associated with patient-physician gender concordance. Results of a survey

BACKGROUND

Cancer screening participation rates in Germany differ depending on patients' gender. International studies have found that patient-physician gender concordance fosters recommendation and conducting of cancer screening, and especially cancer screening for women.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to ascertain whether gender concordance influences general practitioners' (GPs') rating of the usefulness of cancer screening, as well as their recommendations and readiness to conduct cancer screening in general practice in Germany.

METHODS

For an exploratory cross-sectional survey, 500 randomly selected GPs from all over Germany were asked to fill in a questionnaire on cancer screening in general practice between March and June 2015. We asked them to rate the usefulness of each cancer screening examination, how frequently they recommended and conducted them and whether they viewed GPs or specialists as responsible for carrying them out. We used multiple logistic regression to analyse gender effect size by calculating odds ratios.

RESULTS

Our study sample consisted of 139 GPs of which 65% were male. Male and female GPs did not differ significantly in their rating of the general usefulness of any of the specified cancer screening examinations. Male GPs were 2.9 to 6.8 times as likely to consider GPs responsible for recommending and conducting PSA testing and digital rectal examinations and were 3.7 to 7.9 times as likely to recommend and conduct these examinations on a regular basis.

CONCLUSION

Patient-physician gender concordance made it more likely that male-specific cancer screenings would be recommended and conducted, but not female-specific screenings. [Box: see text].

Screening for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Any form of screening aims to reduce disease-specific and overall mortality, and to improve a person's future quality of life. Screening for prostate cancer has generated considerable debate within the medical and broader community, as demonstrated by the varying recommendations made by medical organizations and governed by national policies. To better inform individual patient decision-making and health policy decisions, we need to consider the entire body of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on prostate cancer screening summarised in a systematic review. In 2006, our Cochrane review identified insufficient evidence to either support or refute the use of routine mass, selective, or opportunistic screening for prostate cancer. An update of the review in 2010 included three additional trials. Meta-analysis of the five studies included in the 2010 review concluded that screening did not significantly reduce prostate cancer-specific mortality. In the past two years, several updates to studies included in the 2010 review have been published thereby providing the rationale for this update of the 2010 systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether screening for prostate cancer reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality or all-cause mortality and to assess its impact on quality of life and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

An updated search of electronic databases (PROSTATE register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT, and the NHS EED) was performed, in addition to handsearching of specific journals and bibliographies, in an effort to identify both published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs of screening versus no screening for prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The original search (2006) identified 99 potentially relevant articles that were selected for full-text review. From these citations, two RCTs were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. The search for the 2010 version of the review identified a further 106 potentially relevant articles, from which three new RCTs were included in the review. A total of 31 articles were retrieved for full-text examination based on the updated search in 2012. Updated data on three studies were included in this review. Data from the trials were independently extracted by two authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs with a total of 341,342 participants were included in this review. All involved prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, with or without digital rectal examination (DRE), though the interval and threshold for further evaluation varied across trials. The age of participants ranged from 45 to 80 years and duration of follow-up from 7 to 20 years. Our meta-analysis of the five included studies indicated no statistically significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between men randomised to the screening and control groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.17). The methodological quality of three of the studies was assessed as posing a high risk of bias. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial were assessed as posing a low risk of bias, but provided contradicting results. The ERSPC study reported a significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.95), whilst the PLCO study concluded no significant benefit (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.54). The ERSPC was the only study of the five included in this review that reported a significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality, in a pre-specified subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years of age. Sensitivity analysis for overall risk of bias indicated no significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality when referring to the meta analysis of only the ERSPC and PLCO trial data (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30). Subgroup analyses indicated that prostate cancer-specific mortality was not affected by the age at which participants were screened. Meta-analysis of four studies investigating all-cause mortality did not determine any significant differences between men randomised to screening or control (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.03). A diagnosis of prostate cancer was significantly greater in men randomised to screening compared to those randomised to control (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.65). Localised prostate cancer was more commonly diagnosed in men randomised to screening (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.70), whilst the proportion of men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer was significantly lower in the screening group compared to the men serving as controls (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.87). Screening resulted in a range of harms that can be considered minor to major in severity and duration. Common minor harms from screening include bleeding, bruising and short-term anxiety. Common major harms include overdiagnosis and overtreatment, including infection, blood loss requiring transfusion, pneumonia, erectile dysfunction, and incontinence. Harms of screening included false-positive results for the PSA test and overdiagnosis (up to 50% in the ERSPC study). Adverse events associated with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies included infection, bleeding and pain. No deaths were attributed to any biopsy procedure. None of the studies provided detailed assessment of the effect of screening on quality of life or provided a comprehensive assessment of resource utilization associated with screening (although preliminary analyses were reported).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prostate cancer screening did not significantly decrease prostate cancer-specific mortality in a combined meta-analysis of five RCTs. Only one study (ERSPC) reported a 21% significant reduction of prostate cancer-specific mortality in a pre-specified subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years. Pooled data currently demonstrates no significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific and overall mortality. Harms associated with PSA-based screening and subsequent diagnostic evaluations are frequent, and moderate in severity. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are common and are associated with treatment-related harms. Men should be informed of this and the demonstrated adverse effects when they are deciding whether or not to undertake screening for prostate cancer. Any reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality may take up to 10 years to accrue; therefore, men who have a life expectancy less than 10 to 15 years should be informed that screening for prostate cancer is unlikely to be beneficial. No studies examined the independent role of screening by DRE.

The influence of social determinants on the use of prevention and health promotion services: Results of a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

The following analysis aims to determine whether differences in the use of prevention and health promotion services in Germany can be attributed to health inequality between different social status groups measured by education, occupation and income and where certain improvements can be made in health promotion and prevention efforts and research to reduce those differences.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using MedPilot to identify relevant articles published between 1998 and 2010 in the Medline, Medizinische Gesundheit, CC Med, Deutsches Ärzteblatt and Sozialmedizin (SOMED) databases, the Hogrefe, Karger, Krause and Pachermegg and Thieme publisher databases, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

RESULTS

A total of 23 empirical studies on the topic of "prevention, health prevention and social inequality" met the criteria for inclusion in the review. 20 of the 23 reviewed studies provided relatively clear evidence of a significant association between higher social status and greater use of prevention and health promotion services. According to the reviewed studies, gender tends to have a greater effect on the use of prevention and health promotion services than characteristics of vertical social inequality. No studies were found dealing with tertiary prevention or using qualitative methods to explore their research questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the review shows that there is sufficient evidence for the relationship between social status and the use of prevention and health promotion services and that this association is both significant and relevant. There are, however, a few "blind spots" in research on this topic, such as a lack of studies on tertiary prevention, especially with regards to prevention and health promotion services use among men, as well as general studies on health promotion among men and women. There is also a lack of published intervention studies demonstrating how to better reach the socially disadvantaged.

Risk factors for the onset of prostatic cancer: age, location, and behavioral correlates

At present, only three risk factors for prostate cancer have been firmly established; these are all nonmodifiable: age, race, and a positive family history of prostate cancer. However, numerous modifiable factors have also been implicated in the development of prostate cancer. In the current review, we summarize the epidemiologic data for age, location, and selected behavioral factors in relation to the onset of prostate cancer. Although the available data are not entirely consistent, possible preventative behavioral factors include increased physical activity, intakes of tomatoes, cruciferous vegetables, and soy. Factors that may enhance prostate cancer risk include frequent consumption of dairy products and, possibly, meat. By comparison, alcohol probably exerts no important influence on prostate cancer development. Similarly, dietary supplements are unlikely to protect against the onset of prostate cancer in healthy men. Several factors, such as smoking and obesity, show a weak association with prostate cancer incidence but a positive relation with prostate cancer mortality. Other factors, such as fish intake, also appear to be unassociated with incident prostate cancer but show an inverse relation with fatal prostate cancer. Such heterogeneity in the relationship between behavioral factors and nonadvanced, advanced, or fatal prostate cancers helps shed light on the carcinogenetic process because it discerns the impact of exposure on early and late stages of prostate cancer development. Inconsistent associations between behavioral factors and prostate cancer risk seen in previous studies may in part be due to uncontrolled detection bias because of current widespread use of prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer, and the possibility that certain behavioral factors are systematically related to the likelihood of undergoing screening examinations. In addition, several genes may modify the study results, but data concerning specific gene-environment interactions are currently sparse. Despite large improvements in our understanding of prostate cancer risk factors in the past two decades, present knowledge does not allow definitive recommendations for specific preventative behavioral interventions.

Screening for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Any form of screening aims to reduce mortality and increase a person's quality of life. Screening for prostate cancer has generated considerable debate within the medical community, as demonstrated by the varying recommendations made by medical organizations and governed by national policies. Much of this debate is due to the limited availability of high quality research and the influence of false-positive or false-negative results generated by use of the diagnostic techniques such as the digital rectal examination (DRE) and prostate specific antigen (PSA) blood test.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether screening for prostate cancer reduces prostate cancer mortality and has an impact on quality of life.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic databases (PROSTATE register, CENTRAL the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT and the NHS EED) were searched electronically in addition to hand searching of specific journals and bibliographies in an effort to identify both published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials of screening versus no screening or routine care for prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The search identified 99 potentially relevant articles that were selected for full text review. From these 99 citations, two randomised controlled trials were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. Data from the trials were independently extracted by two authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Two randomised controlled trials with a total of 55,512 participants were included; however, both trials had methodological weaknesses. Re-analysis using intention-to-screen and meta-analysis of results from the two randomised controlled trials indicated no statistically significant difference in prostate cancer mortality between men randomised for prostate cancer screening and controls (RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.80-1.29). Neither study assessed the effect of prostate cancer screening on quality of life, all-cause mortality or cost effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given that only two randomised controlled trials were included, and the high risk of bias of both trials, there is insufficient evidence to either support or refute the routine use of mass, selective or opportunistic screening compared to no screening for reducing prostate cancer mortality. Currently, no robust evidence from randomised controlled trials is available regarding the impact of screening on quality of life, harms of screening, or its economic value. Results from two ongoing large scale multicentre randomised controlled trials that will be available in the next several years are required to make evidence-based decisions regarding prostate cancer screening.