scholarly journals Introducing the 2010 American Cancer Society Prostate Cancer Screening Guideline

2010 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 68-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. W. Brawley ◽  
T. Gansler
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
American Cancer Society ◽  
Cancer Society ◽  
Screening Guideline

Prostate Cancer Screening 2010: Updated Recommendations From the American Cancer Society

2010 ◽  
Vol 102 (5) ◽  
pp. 423-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Durado D. Brooks ◽  
Andrew M.D. Wolf ◽  
Robert A. Smith ◽  
Chiranjeev Dash ◽  
Idris Guessous
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
American Cancer Society ◽  
Cancer Society

scholarly journals Prostate Cancer Screening in Jamaica: Results of the Largest National Screening Clinic

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Belinda F. Morrison ◽  
William Aiken ◽  
Richard Mayhew ◽  
Yulit Gordon ◽  
Marvin Reid
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Older Men ◽  
Gradual Reduction ◽  
Cancer Society ◽  
Prostate Biopsies ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Screening Clinic

Prostate cancer is highly prevalent in Jamaica and is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Our aim was to evaluate the patterns of screening in the largest organized screening clinic in Jamaica at the Jamaica Cancer Society. A retrospective analysis of all men presenting for screening at the Jamaica Cancer Society from 1995 to 2005 was done. All patients had digital rectal examinations (DRE) and prostate specific antigen (PSA) tests done. Results of prostate biopsies were noted. 1117 men of mean age 59.9 ± 8.2 years presented for screening. The median documented PSA was 1.6 ng/mL (maximum of 5170 ng/mL). Most patients presented for only 1 screen. There was a gradual reduction in the mean age of presentation for screening over the period. Prostate biopsies were requested on 11% of screening visits; however, only 59% of these were done. 5.6% of all persons screened were found to have cancer. Of the cancers diagnosed, Gleason 6 adenocarcinoma was the commonest grade and median PSA was 8.9 ng/mL (range 1.5–1059 ng/mL). Older men tend to screen for prostate cancer in Jamaica. However, compliance with regular maintenance visits and requests for confirmatory biopsies are poor. Screening needs intervention in the Jamaican population.

scholarly journals Optimizing colorectal cancer screening by race and sex: Microsimulation analysis II to inform the American Cancer Society colorectal cancer screening guideline

Cancer ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 124 (14) ◽  
pp. 2974-2985 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reinier G. S. Meester ◽  
Elisabeth F. P. Peterse ◽  
Amy B. Knudsen ◽  
Anne C. de Weerdt ◽  
Jennifer C. Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
American Cancer Society ◽  
Cancer Society ◽  
Screening Guideline

Shared decision making for prostate cancer screening: Reality or farce?

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 107-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Pucheril ◽  
Sean A. Fletcher ◽  
Dimitar V. Zlatev ◽  
Matthew Mossanen ◽  
Matthew D. Ingham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Weighted Estimate ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Physician Recommendation ◽  
Cancer Society ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages

107 Background: A core tenant of major cancer society guidelines regarding prostate cancer screening (PSAS) is that providers discuss both the advantages and disadvantages of screening with eligible patients in a shared decision making (SDM) process. We sought to determine contemporary trends of SDM in regards to PSAS. Methods: Consistent with the AUA guidelines for PSAS, data was abstracted from the 2012-2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for men 55-69, without a personal history of prostate cancer, and having answered all questions within the PSAS module. PSAS occurred if a man had a PSA test within the last two years for reasons other than "a prostate problem” or “prostate cancer”. SDM occurred if the respondent was informed about both advantages and disadvantages of PSAS by a health professional. Descriptive statistics were generated for demographic covariates by year. The Chi-Square test was used to compare the distribution of covariate proportions amongst years. Separate multivariable regression models were built to identify independent predictors of both receipt of PSA screening and SDM. Results: A weighted estimate of 56.7 million men (n = 138,492) met inclusion criteria. Reported rates of PSAS decreased each year (56.7% in 2012 to 52.6% in 2014 to 49.1% in 2016, p < 000.1). There were no significant changes in rates of SDM (p = 0.82); in all three years, less than one-third of respondents reported SDM. After controlling for known confounders, possession of a personal physician (OR 2.24,95%CI 2.02-2.48), receipt of information regarding the advantages of PSAS (OR 3.93, 95%CI 3.63-4.26), and receiving a physician recommendation to undergo PSAS (OR 7.78, 95%CI 7.25-8.35) were most strongly associated with odds of undergoing PSAS. Odds of reporting participation in SDM were strongest amongst black respondents (2.09 95%CI 1.92-2.28) and those who received a physician recommendation to undergo PSAS (OR 4.64, 95%CI 4.32-4.99). Conclusions: Despite recommendations that physicians engage patients in a SDM process, our findings suggest that less than a third of patients are advised of both the advantages and disadvantages of PSAS. With the likely revision of the USPSTF PSAS recommendation to Grade C, a renewed effort towards SDM is needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document