1
|
Estevan-Ortega M, de la Encarnación Castellano C, Mendiola-López A, Parker LA, Caballero-Romeu JP, Lumbreras B. Urologists' and general practitioners' knowledge, beliefs and practice relevant for opportunistic prostate cancer screening: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review. Front Med (Lausanne) 2024; 11:1283654. [PMID: 38435387 PMCID: PMC10905619 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1283654] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/06/2023] [Accepted: 02/06/2024] [Indexed: 03/05/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Recent guidelines on opportunistic prostate cancer screening conclude that the decision to screen with prostate-specific antigen should be made by each patient individually together with the clinician. However, there is evidence of a lack of clinicians' awareness of prostate cancer screening. This study sought to assess the recent evidence of clinicians' knowledge, beliefs, and practice regarding opportunistic prostate cancer screening comparing urologists and generals practitioners. Methods A systematic search was conducted in 3 online databases: MEDLINE, Web of Science and EMBASE (from January 1, 2015, to January 9th, 2023). Studies that explored clinicians' knowledge, beliefs, and practices regarding opportunistic prostate cancer screening were included. Studies were assessed for quality reporting according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Results A total of 14 studies met the inclusion criteria: ten studies included primary care health professionals, three studies included urologists, and one study included both. Studies involving general practitioners showed a generally low level of awareness of the recommended uses of the test, and urologists showed a greater knowledge of clinical practice guidelines. General practitioners' opinion of prostate-specific antigen was generally unfavourable in contrast to urologists' who were more likely to be proactive in ordering the test. Less than half of the included studies evaluated shared-decision making in practice and 50% of clinicians surveyed implemented it. Conclusion General practitioners had less knowledge of prostate cancer risk factors and clinical practice guidelines in the use of PSA than urologists, which makes them less likely to follow available recommendations. A need to carry out education interventions with trusted resources based on the available evidence and the current guidelines was identified.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Lucy A. Parker
- Department of Public Health, University Miguel Hernández de Elche, Alicante, Spain
- CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
| | - Juan Pablo Caballero-Romeu
- Department of Urology, University General Hospital of Alicante, Alicante, Spain
- Alicante Institute for Health and Biomedical Research (ISABIAL), Alicante, Spain
| | - Blanca Lumbreras
- Department of Public Health, University Miguel Hernández de Elche, Alicante, Spain
- CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Filella X, Albaladejo MD, Allué JA, Castaño MA, Morell-Garcia D, Ruiz MÀ, Santamaría M, Torrejón MJ, Giménez N. Prostate cancer screening: guidelines review and laboratory issues. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020; 57:1474-1487. [PMID: 31120856 DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2018-1252] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2018] [Accepted: 04/21/2019] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
Background Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) remains as the most used biomarker in the detection of early prostate cancer (PCa). Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are produced to facilitate incorporation of evidence into clinical practice. This is particularly useful when PCa screening remains controversial and guidelines diverge among different medical institutions, although opportunistic screening is not recommended. Methods We performed a systematic review of guidelines about PCa screening using PSA. Guidelines published since 2008 were included in this study. The most updated version of these CPGs was used for the evaluation. Results Twenty-two guidelines were selected for review. In 59% of these guidelines, recommendations were graded according to level of evidence (n = 13), but only 18% of the guidelines provided clear algorithms (n = 4). Each CPG was assessed using a checklist of laboratory issues, including pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical factors. We found that laboratory medicine specialists participate in 9% of the guidelines reviewed (n = 2) and laboratory issues were frequently omitted. We remarked that information concerning the consequences of World Health Organization (WHO) standard in PSA testing was considered by only two of 22 CPGs evaluated in this study. Conclusions We concluded that the quality of PCa early detection guidelines could be improved properly considering the laboratory issues in their development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xavier Filella
- Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Commission and Biological Markers of Cancer Commission, Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine (SEQC-ML), Barcelona, Spain.,Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics (CDB), Hospital Clinic, IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain
| | - María Dolores Albaladejo
- Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Commission, Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine (SEQC-ML), Barcelona, Spain.,Department of Clinical Analysis and Biochemistry, Hospital General Universitario Santa Lucía, Cartagena, Spain
| | - Juan Antonio Allué
- Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Commission, Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine (SEQC-ML), Barcelona, Spain.,Synlab Diagnosticos Globales, Sevilla, Spain
| | - Miguel Angel Castaño
- Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Commission, Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine (SEQC-ML), Barcelona, Spain.,Department of Biochemistry, Hospital Clínico Universitario Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain
| | - Daniel Morell-Garcia
- Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Commission, Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine (SEQC-ML), Barcelona, Spain.,Department of Laboratory Medicine, Hospital Universitari Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca, Spain
| | - Maria Àngels Ruiz
- Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Commission, Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine (SEQC-ML), Barcelona, Spain.,Department of Laboratory Medicine, Fundació Hospital de l'Esperit Sant, Santa Coloma de Gramenet, Barcelona, Spain
| | - María Santamaría
- Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Commission, Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine (SEQC-ML), Barcelona, Spain.,Department of Biochemistry, Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, Zaragoza, Spain
| | - María José Torrejón
- Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Commission, Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine (SEQC-ML), Barcelona, Spain.,UGC of Clinical Analysis, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
| | - Nuria Giménez
- Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Commission, Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine (SEQC-ML), Barcelona, Spain.,Committee of Evidence-Based Laboratory Medicine (C-EBLM), International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC), Milano, Italy.,Research Unit, Research Foundation Mútua Terrassa, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.,Laboratory of Toxicology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|