Informed decision making on PSA testing for the detection of prostate cancer: an evaluation of a leaflet with risk indicator

Barriers and facilitators of shared decision-making in prostate cancer screening in primary care: A systematic review

Objective

To identify barriers and facilitators of the implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) on PSA testing in primary care.

Design

Systematic review of articles.

Data sources

PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science.

Eligibility criteria

Original studies published in English or Spanish that assessed the barriers to and facilitators of SDM before PSA testing in primary care were included. No time restrictions were applied.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two review authors screened the titles, abstracts and full texts for inclusion, and assessed the quality of the included studies. A thematic synthesis of the results were performed and developed a framework. Quality assessment of the studies was based on three checklists: STROBE for quantitative cross-sectional studies, GUIDED for intervention studies and SRQR for qualitative studies.

Results

The search returned 431 articles, of which we included 13: five cross-sectional studies, two intervention studies, five qualitative studies and one mixed methods study. The identified barriers included lack of time (healthcare professionals), lack of knowledge (healthcare professionals and patients), and preestablished beliefs (patients). The identified facilitators included decision-making training for professionals, education for patients and healthcare professionals, and dissemination of information.

Conclusions

SDM implementation in primary care seems to be a recent field. Many of the barriers identified are modifiable, and the facilitators can be leveraged to strengthen the implementation of SDM.

Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening

This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) tools for cancer screening and explored the preferences of vulnerable people and clinicians regarding the specific characteristics of the SDM tools. A mixed-method convergent segregated approach was employed, which involved an independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data. Articles were systematically selected and screened, resulting in the inclusion and critical appraisal of 55 studies. Results from the meta-analysis revealed that SDM tools were more effective for improving knowledge, reducing decisional conflict, and increasing screening intentions among vulnerable populations compared to non-vulnerable populations. Subgroup analyses showed minimal heterogeneity for decisional conflict outcomes measured over a six-month period. Insights from the qualitative findings revealed the complexities of clinicians' and vulnerable populations' preferences for an SDM tool in cancer screening. Vulnerable populations highly preferred SDM tools with relevant information, culturally tailored content, and appropriate communication strategies. Clinicians, on the other hand, highly preferred tools that can be easily integrated into their medical systems for efficient use and can effectively guide their practice for cancer screening while considering patients' values. Considering the complexities of patients' and clinicians' preferences in SDM tool characteristics, fostering collaboration between patients and clinicians during the creation of an SDM tool for cancer screening is essential. This collaboration may ensure effective communication about the specific tool characteristics that best support the needs and preferences of both parties.

Systematic evaluation of written health information on PSA based screening in Germany

Background

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) based screening for early detection of prostate cancer is common although it is associated with both benefits and potential harms (e.g., the risk of overdiagnosis). Evidence-based health information could help individuals make informed decisions about whether to undergo PSA testing or not. This evaluation aimed to determine whether the written health information materials available in Germany provide appropriate information for informed decision-making on PSA based screening.

Methods

A list of criteria was developed and used to systematically assess the quality of information on the benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening included in written health information materials. Fourteen information materials identified by information requests and online searches were evaluated independently by two of three reviewers. Consensus was achieved with a third reviewer.

Results

Of the 14 information materials evaluated, 10 (71%) list the ability to reduce the absolute risk of death from prostate cancer as a benefit of PSA testing, 9 (64%) point out the risks of follow-up diagnostics, 13 (93%) describe the risks of the available prostate cancer treatments, and all 14 specify the risk of overdiagnosis. The minority provide numerical data on benefits and risks. Partially mismatched framing was identified in four cases: two information materials report only the relative frequencies of benefits, and two report only the absolute frequencies of harms. Half of the materials encouraged participation using downplaying or frightening language.

Conclusions

The majority of health information materials in Germany describe the benefits and harms of PSA based screening, including overdiagnosis, but often lack adequate balance, neutrality and numbers.

Prostate cancer screening: Knowledge, attitudes and practices in a sample of men in Italy. A survey

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes and behaviors towards prostate cancer and its prevention.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted on a random sample of 625 fathers of students attending eight public schools. The self-administered questionnaire included questions on: socio-demographic characteristics, personal and familiar medical history of prostate cancer, knowledge about prostate cancer and the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, perception of risk towards prostate cancer, perception of the benefits of having a PSA-test, willingness to receive the PSA-test and sources of and needs of information regarding prostate cancer and the PSA-test.

Results

72.7% of respondents had heard about the PSA-test and 51.1% of those had heard about it through their physicians. This knowledge was higher: in men with older age, in those that had a higher level of education, in those who had a relative with prostrate problems or prostate cancer and in those with prostate problems. Perceived personal risk of contracting prostate cancer was associated with a higher level of education, in those who had received information about prostate cancer from a physician and in those with prostate problems. Only 29.6% of men had undergone a PSA-test and 59.4% were willing to do so in the future. The significant predictors of the willingness to receive a PSA-test were the belief that the PSA-test was useful, the perception of not very good personal health status, and need of additional information about the PSA-test.

Conclusion

Respondents have a moderate knowledge about prostate cancer and a good propensity to undergo the PSA-test. Therefore, it would be necessary to increase information on the risks of prostate cancer and the benefits of prostate cancer prevention.

Women's attitude towards routine human platelet antigen-screening in pregnancy

INTRODUCTION

Fetal and neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia is a potentially life-threatening disease with excellent preventative treatment available for subsequent pregnancies. To prevent index cases, the effectiveness of a population-based screening program has been suggested repeatedly. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate women's attitude towards possible future human platelet antigen-screening in pregnancy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional questionnaire study among healthy pregnant women receiving prenatal care in one of seven participating midwifery practices. Attitude was assessed using a questionnaire based on the validated Multidimensional Measurement of Informed Choice model, containing questions assessing knowledge, attitude and intention to participate.

RESULTS

A total of 143 of the 220 women (65%) completed and returned the questionnaire. A positive attitude towards human platelet antigen-screening was expressed by 91% of participants, of which 94% was based on sufficient knowledge. Attitude was more likely to be negatively influenced by the opinion that screening can be frightening. Informed choices were made in 87% and occurred significantly less in women from non-European origin, 89% in European women vs. 60% in non-European women (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women in the Netherlands expressed a positive attitude towards human platelet antigen-screening in pregnancy. We therefore expect a high rate of informed uptake when human platelet antigen-screening is implemented. In future counseling on human platelet antigen-screening, ethnicity and possible anxiety associated with a screening test need to be specifically addressed.

A score to estimate the likelihood of detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia at colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop and validate a model to estimate the likelihood of detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia in Caucasian patients.

DESIGN

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of database records for 40-year-old to 66-year-old patients who entered a national primary colonoscopy-based screening programme for colorectal cancer in 73 centres in Poland in the year 2007. We used multivariate logistic regression to investigate the associations between clinical variables and the presence of advanced neoplasia in a randomly selected test set, and confirmed the associations in a validation set. We used model coefficients to develop a risk score for detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia.

RESULTS

Advanced colorectal neoplasia was detected in 2544 of the 35,918 included participants (7.1%). In the test set, a logistic-regression model showed that independent risk factors for advanced colorectal neoplasia were: age, sex, family history of colorectal cancer, cigarette smoking (p<0.001 for these four factors), and Body Mass Index (p=0.033). In the validation set, the model was well calibrated (ratio of expected to observed risk of advanced neoplasia: 1.00 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.06)) and had moderate discriminatory power (c-statistic 0.62). We developed a score that estimated the likelihood of detecting advanced neoplasia in the validation set, from 1.32% for patients scoring 0, to 19.12% for patients scoring 7-8.

CONCLUSIONS

Developed and internally validated score consisting of simple clinical factors successfully estimates the likelihood of detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic Caucasian patients. Once externally validated, it may be useful for counselling or designing primary prevention studies.

Decision making and prostate cancer screening

This article presents an overview of the challenges that men encounter in making decisions about prostate cancer screening, including complex affective and cognitive factors and controversies in the interpretation of the evidence on prostate cancer screening. Shared decision making involving patient decision aids are discussed as approaches that can be used to improve the quality of prostate cancer screening decisions, including a close alignment between a man's values, goals, and preferences and his choice about screening.

Elderly Men's Experience of Information Material about Melanoma-A Qualitative Study

Malignant melanoma is an aggressive disease that has been increasing worldwide. Public education is trying to focus on reducing intense sun exposure and raise awareness of signs and symptoms to prevent illness. The aim of the study was to describe and analyze elderly men's (over 65 years) experience of an information booklet regarding malignant melanoma. The study comprised of a total of 15 interviews with elderly men. The interviews were analyzed using manifest qualitative content analysis. Respect for the individuals was a main concern in the study. One category, Security-to act, and three subcategories, Availability-to use, Clarity-to understand, and Awareness-to know, were identified to describe the men's experiences of information material about melanoma. By using person-centered care, based on a holistic approach focusing on men's need for security to act on specific risk factors and to do skin self-examination, health could be improved. The results of this study could help other health organizations to develop information material to prevent illness, such as for skin self-examination. Strategies concerning educating, preparing, and training health professionals in interpersonal communication skills should be implemented in healthcare organizations to meet patients' information needs about illness to develop continuous learning and quality improvement.

What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening?

Recent guidelines on cancer screening have provided not only more screening options but also conflicting recommendations. Thus, patients, with their clinicians' support, must decide whether to get screened, which modality to use, and how often to undergo screening. Decision aids could potentially lead to better shared decision-making regarding screening between the patient and the clinician. A total of 73 decision aids concerning screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers were reviewed. The goal of this review was to assess the effectiveness of such decision aids, examine areas in need of more research, and determine how the decision aids can be currently applied in the real-world setting. Most studies used sound study designs. Significant variation existed in the setting, theoretical framework, and measured outcomes. Just over one-third of the decision aids included an explicit values clarification. Other than knowledge, little consistency was noted with regard to which patient attributes were measured as outcomes. Few studies actually measured shared decision-making. Little information was available regarding the feasibility and outcomes of integrating decision aids into practice. In this review, the implications for future research, as well as what clinicians can do now to incorporate decision aids into their practice, are discussed.

What influences the decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening with faecal occult blood testing and sigmoidoscopy?

INTRODUCTION

Uptake is an important determinant of the effectiveness of population-based screening. Uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening generally remains sub-optimal.

AIM

To determine factors influencing the decision whether to participate or not among individuals invited for faecal occult blood test (FOBT) or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to a stratified random sample of individuals aged 50-74, previously invited for a randomised CRC screening trial offering FOBT or FS, and a reference group from the same population not previously invited (screening naïve group). The questionnaire assessed reasons for (non)-participation, individuals' characteristics associated with participation, knowledge, attitudes and level of informed choice.

RESULTS

The response rate was 75% (n=341/452) for CRC screening participants, 21% (n=676/3212) for non-participants and 38% (n=192/500) for screening-naïve individuals. The main reasons for FOBT and FS participation were acquiring certainty about CRC presence and possible early CRC detection. Anticipated regret and positive attitudes towards CRC screening were strong predictors of actual participation and intention to participate in a next round. The main reason for non-participation in FOBT screening was lack of abdominal complaints. Non-participation in FS screening was additionally influenced by worries about burden. Eighty-one percent of participants and 12% of non-participants made an informed choice on participation.

CONCLUSION

Only 12% of non-participants made an informed choice not to participate. These results imply that governments and/or organizations offering screening should focus on adequately informing and educating target populations about the harms and benefits of CRC screening. This may impact uptake of CRC screening.

A Calculator for Prostate Cancer Risk 4 Years After an Initially Negative Screen: Findings from ERSPC Rotterdam

BACKGROUND

Inconclusive test results often occur after prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer (PCa), leading to uncertainty on whether, how, and when to repeat testing.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a prediction tool for the risk of PCa 4 yr after an initially negative screen.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We analyzed data from 15 791 screen-negative men aged 55-70 yr at the initial screening round of the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Follow-up and repeat screening at 4 yr showed either no PCa, low-risk PCa, or potentially high-risk PCa (defined as clinical stage >T2b and/or biopsy Gleason score ≥ 7 and/or PSA ≥ 10.0 ng/ml). A multinomial logistic regression analysis included initial screening data on age, PSA, digital rectal examination (DRE), family history, prostate volume, and having had a previous negative biopsy. The 4-yr risk predictions were validated with additional follow-up data up to 8 yr after initial screening.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Positive family history and, especially, PSA level predicted PCa, whereas a previous negative biopsy or a large prostate volume reduced the likelihood of future PCa. The risk of having PCa 4 yr after an initially negative screen was 3.6% (interquartile range: 1.0-4.7%). Additional 8-yr follow-up data confirmed these predictions. Although data were based on sextant biopsies and a strict protocol-based biopsy indication, we suggest that men with a low predicted 4-yr risk (eg, ≤ 1.0%) could be rescreened at longer intervals or not at all, depending on competing risks, while men with an elevated 4-yr risk (eg, ≥ 5%) might benefit from immediate retesting. These findings need to be validated externally.

CONCLUSIONS

This 4-yr future risk calculator, based on age, PSA, DRE, family history, prostate volume, and previous biopsy status, may be a promising tool for reducing uncertainty, unnecessary testing, and overdiagnosis of PCa.

[How can early detection programs become a men's health topic? Survey of urology practices]

BACKGROUND

Various statistics demonstrate the importance of medical prevention in men.

METHOD

As one example, overall survival is increased with the early diagnosis of prostate cancer. In this article information from 212 consecutive patients with an appointment in a urology practice is presented and discussed. Of special interest are factors that motivate men to participate in early detection programs for prostate cancer. The data give an insight into reasoning and motivation for men to participate in such programs and criteria to select a specific urology practice.

RESULTS

The results, which also include diagnostic methods that are not covered by the general German health insurance and have to be paid by the patient himself, can help the urologist promote diagnostic tools and identify areas of deficit. A key role is played by the family physician. Our results show that he is the primary source for health-related questions. He has the best opportunity to draw the attention of the mature and critical patient to measures of precaution and emphasize their importance. This is especially true for the large group of men who so far have not participated in early detection programs since they apparently are not aware of their own personal health risk.

Selecting men diagnosed with prostate cancer for active surveillance using a risk calculator: a prospective impact study

Study Type - Prognosis (cohort series). Level of Evidence 2a. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? The present study is one of the first to investigate urologists' and patients' compliance with recommendations based on a risk calculator that calculates the probability of indolent prostate cancer. A threshold was set for a recommendation of active surveillance vs active treatment. Active surveillance recommendations based on a prostate cancer risk calculator were followed by most patients, but 30% with active treatment recommendations chose active surveillance instead. This indicates that the threshold may be too high for urologists and patients.

OBJECTIVES

• To assess urologists' and patients' compliance with treatment recommendations based on a prostate cancer risk calculator (RC) and the reasons for non-compliance. • To assess the difference between patients who were compliant and non-compliant with recommendations based on this RC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• Eight urologists from five Dutch hospitals included 240 patients with prostate cancer (PCa), aged 55-75 years, from December 2008 to February 2011. • The urologists used the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer RC which predicts the probability of potentially indolent PCa (P[indolent]), using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume and pathological findings on biopsy. • Inclusion criteria were PSA <20 ng/mL, clinical stage T1 or T2a-c disease, <50% positive sextant biopsy cores, ≤ 20 mm cancer tissue, ≥ 40 mm benign tissue and Gleason ≤ 3 + 3. If the P(indolent) was >70%, active surveillance (AS) was recommended, and active treatment (AT) otherwise. • After the treatment decision, patients completed a questionnaire about their treatment choice, related (dis)advantages, and validated measurements of other factors, e.g. anxiety.

RESULTS

• Most patients (45/55, 82%) were compliant with an AS recommendation. Another 54 chose AS despite an AT recommendation (54/185, 29%). • The most common reason for non-compliance with AT recommendations by urologists was the patient's preference for AS (n= 30). These patients most often reported the delay of physical side effects of AT as the main advantage (n= 19). • Those who complied with AT recommendations had higher mean PSA levels (8 vs 7 ng/mL, P= 0.02), higher mean amount of cancer tissue (7 vs 3 mm, P < 0.001), lower mean P(indolent) (36% vs 55%, P < 0.001), and higher mean generic anxiety scores (42 vs 38, P= 0.03) than those who did not comply.

CONCLUSIONS

• AS recommendations were followed by most patients, while 29% with AT recommendations chose AS instead. • Although further research is needed to validate the RC threshold, the current version is already useful in treatment decision-making in men with localized PCa.

Compliance with biopsy recommendations of a prostate cancer risk calculator

Study Type - Diagnostic (cohort) Level of Evidence 2b What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? So far, few publications have shown that a prediction model influences the behaviour of both physicians and patients. To our knowledge, it was unknown whether urologists and patients are compliant with the recommendations of a prostate cancer risk calculator and their reasons for non-compliance. Recommendations of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculator (ERSPC RC) about the need of a prostate biopsy were followed in most patients. In most cases of non-compliance with 'no biopsy' recommendations, a PSA level ≥ 3 ng/mL was decisive to opt for biopsy. Before implementation of the ERSPC RC in urological practices at a large scale, it is important to obtain insight into the use of guidelines that might counteract the adoption of the use of the RC as a result of opposing recommendations.

OBJECTIVES

To assess both urologist and patient compliance with a 'no biopsy' or 'biopsy' recommendation of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Risk Calculator (RC), as well as their reasons for non-compliance. To assess determinants of patient compliance.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The ERSPC RC calculates the probability on a positive sextant prostate biopsy (P(posb) ) using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, outcomes of digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography, and ultrasonographically assessed prostate volume. A biopsy was recommended if P(posb) ≥20%. Between 2008 and 2011, eight urologists from five Dutch hospitals included 443 patients (aged 55-75 years) after a PSA test with no previous biopsy. Urologists calculated the P(posb) using the RC in the presence of patients and completed a questionnaire about compliance. Patients completed a questionnaire about prostate cancer knowledge, attitude towards prostate biopsy, self-rated health (12-Item Short Form Health Survey), anxiety (State Trait Anxiety Inventory-6, Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer) and decision-making measures (Decisional Conflict Scale).

RESULTS

Both urologists and patients complied with the RC recommendation in 368 of 443 (83%) cases. If a biopsy was recommended, almost all patients (96%; 257/269) complied, although 63 of the 174 (36%) patients were biopsied against the recommendation of the RC. Compliers with a 'no biopsy' recommendation had a lower mean P(posb) than non-compliers (9% vs 14%; P < 0.001). Urologists opted for biopsies against the recommendations of the RC because of an elevated PSA level (≥ 3 ng/mL) (78%; 49/63) and patients because they wanted certainty (60%; 38/63).

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations of the ERSPC RC on prostate biopsy were followed in most patients. The RC hence may be a promising tool for supporting clinical decision-making.

Applying strategies from libertarian paternalism to decision making for prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening

BACKGROUND

Despite the recent publication of results from two randomized clinical trials, prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer remains a controversial issue. There is lack of agreement across studies that PSA screening significantly reduces prostate cancer mortality. In spite of these facts, the widespread use of PSA testing in the United States leads to overdetection and overtreatment of clinically indolent prostate cancer, and its associated harms of incontinence and impotence.

DISCUSSION

Given the inconclusive results from clinical trials and incongruent PSA screening guidelines, the decision to screen for prostate cancer with PSA testing is an uncertain one for patients and health care providers. Screening guidelines from some health organizations recommend an informed decision making (IDM) or shared decision making (SDM) approach for deciding on PSA screening. These approaches aim to empower patients to choose among the available options by making them active participants in the decision making process. By increasing involvement of patients in the clinical decision-making process, IDM/SDM places more of the responsibility for a complex decision on the patient. Research suggests, however, that patients are not well-informed of the harms and benefits associated with prostate cancer screening and are also subject to an assortment of biases, emotion, fears, and irrational thought that interferes with making an informed decision. In response, the IDM/SDM approaches can be augmented with strategies from the philosophy of libertarian paternalism (LP) to improve decision making. LP uses the insights of behavioural economics to help people better make better choices. Some of the main strategies of LP applicable to PSA decision making are a default decision rule, framing of decision aids, and timing of the decision. In this paper, we propose that applying strategies from libertarian paternalism can help with PSA screening decision-making.

SUMMARY

Our proposal to augment IDM and SDM approaches with libertarian paternalism strategies is intended to guide patients toward a better decision about testing while maintaining personal freedom of choice. While PSA screening remains controversial and evidence conflicting, a libertarian-paternalism influenced approach to decision making can help prevent the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer.

PSA-based prostate cancer screening: the role of active surveillance and informed and shared decision making

Since the first publication describing the identification of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the 1960s, much progress has been made. The PSA test changed from being initially a monitoring tool to being also used as a diagnostic tool. Over time, the test has been heavily debated due to its lack of sensitivity and specificity. However, up to now the PSA test is still the only biomarker for the detection and monitoring of prostate cancer. PSA-based screening for prostate cancer is associated with a high proportion of unnecessary testing and overdiagnosis with subsequent overtreatment. In the early years of screening for prostate cancer, high rates of uptake were very important. However, over time the opinion on PSA-based screening has shifted towards the notion of informed choice. Nowadays, it is thought to be unethical to screen men without them being aware of the pros and cons of PSA testing, as well as the fact that an informed choice is related to better patient outcomes. Now, as the results of three major screening studies have been presented and the downsides of screening are becoming better understood, informed choice is becoming more relevant.