Engaging the primary care community to encourage appropriate prostate cancer screening

Initial Longitudinal Outcomes of Risk-Stratified Men in Their Forties Screened for Prostate Cancer Following Implementation of a Baseline Prostate-Specific Antigen

PURPOSE

Prostate cancer (PCa) screening can lead to potential over-diagnosis/over-treatment of indolent cancers. There is a need to optimize practices to better risk-stratify patients. We examined initial longitudinal outcomes of mid-life men with an elevated baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) following initiation of a novel screening program within a system-wide network.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We assessed our primary care network patients ages 40 to 49 years with a PSA measured following implementation of an electronic health record screening algorithm from 2/2/2017-2/21/2018. The multidisciplinary algorithm was developed taking factors including age, race, family history, and PSA into consideration to provide a personalized approach to urology referral to be used with shared decision-making. Outcomes of men with PSA ≥1.5 ng/mL were evaluated through 7/2021. Statistical analyses identified factors associated with PCa detection. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as Gleason Grade Group (GGG) ≥2 or GGG1 with PSA ≥10 ng/mL.

RESULTS

The study cohort contained 564 patients, with 330 (58.5%) referred to urology for elevated PSA. Forty-nine (8.7%) underwent biopsy; of these, 20 (40.8%) returned with PCa. Eleven (2.0% of total cohort and 55% of PCa diagnoses) had csPCa. Early referral timing (odds ratio [OR], 4.58) and higher PSA (OR, 1.07) were significantly associated with PCa at biopsy on multivariable analysis (both p<0.05), while other risk factors were not. Referred patients had higher mean PSAs (2.97 vs. 1.98, p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary outcomes following implementation of a multidisciplinary screening algorithm identified PCa in a small, important percentage of men in their forties. These results provide insight into baseline PSA measurement to provide early risk stratification and detection of csPCa in patients with otherwise extended life expectancy. Further follow-up is needed to possibly determine the prognostic significance of such mid-life screening and optimize primary care physician-urologist coordination.

Genetically Informed Prostate Cancer Screening

Prostate cancer represents a significant health care burden in the United States due to its incidence, treatment-related morbidity, and cancer-specific mortality. The burden begins with prostate-specific antigen screening, which has been subject to controversy due to concerns of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Advancements in molecular oncology have provided evidence for the inherited predisposition to prostate cancer, which could improve individualized, risk-adapted approaches to screening and mitigate the harms of routine screening. This review presents the current evidence for the genetic basis of prostate cancer and novel genetically informed, risk-adapted screening strategies for prostate cancer.

Primary care perspective and implementation of a multidisciplinary, institutional prostate cancer screening algorithm embedded in the electronic health record

PURPOSE

In response to controversy regarding prostate cancer (CaP) screening recommendations, a consolidated Duke Cancer Institute (DCI) multidisciplinary algorithm for CaP screening was developed and implemented. We conducted an online survey within the year following its implementation to assess primary care provider (PCP) attitudes and adoption as well as to evaluate how this program affects screening rates.

METHODS

A web-based 18-item survey was programmed and was electronically mailed to practicing PCPs at clinics affiliated with the Duke Primary Care system. The survey assessed provider practices and attitudes regarding CaP screening, factors that influenced their general screening recommendations and the confidence related to communicating with patients about screening. The rate of PSA screening before and after implementation of the algorithm was reported across age and race categories.

RESULTS

In sum, 94 of 106 respondents (88.6%) reported discussing the benefits and harms of screening and let their patients decide (52.8%) or recommended for (31.1%) or against (4.7%) screening. Three-fourths of respondents followed a specific panel recommendation such as the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) (48.1%), DCI (20%), or the American Urological Association (AUA) (7.4%) guidelines. After integrating this algorithm into the electronic health record, the rate of prostate screening increased between 11% and 20.4% and 15.6% and 16.4% among different age and race categories, respectively. Overall, 79.2% of PCPs felt very confident regarding their ability to communicate the topic of CaP screening with patients.

CONCLUSION

The DCI multidisciplinary CaP screening algorithm was well adopted among PCPs shortly after its implementation. The rate of screening increased among all age and race categories thereafter. The majority of PCPs involved in this survey felt confident regarding their CaP screening knowledge and most discuss this topic with patients in a shared decision-making model.