Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of a suspicious prostate biopsy on patients’ psychological, socio-behavioral, and medical care outcomes

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the psychological, socio-behavioral, and medical implications of apparently false-positive prostate cancer screening results.

METHODS: One hundred and twenty-one men with a benign prostate biopsy performed in response to a suspicious screening test (biopsy group) and 164 men with a normal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test result (normal PSA group) responded to a questionnaire 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months after their biopsy or PSA test.

RESULTS: The mean (±SD) age of respondents was 61±9 years (range, 41 to 88 years). One year later, 26% (32/121) of men in the biopsy group reported having worried “a lot” or “some of the time” that they may develop prostate cancer, compared with 6% (10/164) in the normal PSA group (P<.001). Forty-six percent of the biopsy group reported thinking their wife or significant other was concerned about prostate cancer, versus 14% in the normal PSA group (P<.001). Medical record review showed that biopsied men were more likely than those in the normal PSA group to have had at least 1 follow-up PSA test over the year (73% vs 42%, P<.001), more likely to have had another biopsy (15% vs 1%, P<.001), and more likely to have visited a urologist (71% vs 13%, P<.001).

CONCLUSION: One year later, men who underwent prostate biopsy more often reported worrying about prostate cancer. In addition, there were related psychological, socio-behavioral, and medical care implications. These hidden tolls associated with screening should be considered in the discussion about the benefits and risks of prostate cancer screening.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Harris R, Lohr KN. Screening for prostate cancer: an update of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:917–29.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sirovich BE, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Screening men for prostate and colorectal cancer in the United States: does practice reflect the evidence? JAMA. 2003;289:1414–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Stamey T, Caldwell M, McNeal J, Nolley RMH, Down J. The prostate specific antigen era in the United States is over for prostate cancer: what happened in the last 20 years? J Urol. 2004;172:1297–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McNaughton-Collins M, Fowler F, Caubet J, et al. Psychological effects of a suspicious prostate cancer screening test followed by a benign biopsy result. Am J Med. 2004;117:719–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Essink-Bot ML, de Koning HJ, Nijs HG, Kirkels WJ, van der Maas PJ, Schroder FH. Short-term effects of population-based screening for prostate cancer on health-related quality of life. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:925–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gustafsson O, Theorell T, Norming U, Perski A, Ohstrom M, Nyman CR. Psychological reactions in men screened for prostate cancer. Br J Urol. 1995;75:631–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Taylor KL, DiPlacido J, Redd WH, Faccenda K, Greer L, Perlmutter A. Demographics, family histories, and psychological characteristics of prostate carcinoma screening participants. Cancer. 1999;85:1305–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cantor SB, Volk RJ, Cass AR, Gilani J, Spann SJ. Psychological benefits of prostate cancer screening: the role of reassurance. Health Expect. 2002;5:104–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer BK, Boyce A, Jepson C, Engstrom PF. Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114:657–61.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gram IT, Lund E, Slenker SE. Quality of life following a false positive mammogram. Br J Cancer. 1990;62:1018–22.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lidbrink E, Elfving J, Frisell J, Jonsson E. Neglected aspects of false positive findings of mammography in breast cancer screening: analysis of false positive cases from the stockholm trial [see comments]. BMJ. 1996;312:273–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ellman R, Angeli N, Christians A, Moss S, Chamberlain J, Maguire P. Psychiatric morbidity associated with screening for breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1989;60:781–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lafata J, Simpkins J, Lamerato L, Poisson L, Divine G, Johnson C. The economic impact of false-positive cancer screens. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13:2126–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ford M, Havstad S, Demers R, Johnson C. Effects of false-positive prostate cancer screening results on subsequent prostate cancer screening behavior. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14:190–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Fowler F Jr, Welch H. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. JAMA. 2004;291:71–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:347–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pignone M, Rich M, Teutsch SM, Berg AO, Lohr KN. Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:132–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Roehrborn CG, Pickens GJ, Sanders JS. Diagnostic yield of repeated transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies stratified by specific histopathologic diagnoses and prostate specific antigen levels. Urology. 1996;47:347–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Djavan B, Zlotta AR, Ekane S, et al. Is one set of sextant biopsies enough to rule out prostate cancer? Influence of transition and total prostate volumes on prostate cancer yield [in process citation]. Eur Urol. 2000;38:218–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Levine MA, Ittman M, Melamed J, Lepor H. Two consecutive sets of transrectal ultrasound guided sextant biopsies of the prostate for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol. 1998;159:471–5; Discussion 75–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Djavan B, Ravery V, Zlotta AR, et al. Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3, and 4: when should we stop? J Urol. 2001;166:1679–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Volk R, Cantor S, Cass A, Spann S, Weller S, Krahn M. Preferences of husbands and wives for outcomes of prostate cancer screening and treatment. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:339–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Volk R, Cantor S, Spann S, Cass A, Cardenas M, Warren M. Preferences of husbands and wives for prostate cancer screening. Arch Fam Med. 1997;6:72–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ransohoff D, McNaughton-Collins M, Fowler F Jr. Why is prostate cancer screening so common when the evidence is so uncertain? A system without negative feedback. Am J Med. 2002;113:663–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wilt T, Partin M. Reducing psanxiety: the importance of noninvasive chronic disease management in prostate cancer detection and treatment. Am J Med. 2004;117:796–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Center for Survey Research, University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, USA

    Floyd J. Fowler Jr PhD & Alison Hauser MA

  2. The General Medicine Division (DWB) and Division of Urology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Jean-Francois Caubet MD & David W. Bates MD, MSc

  3. The General Medicine Division, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA

    Jeong Min Lee MD

  4. General Medicine Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, 50 Staniford Street, 9th Floor, 02114, Boston, MA

    Michael J. Barry MD, Beth Walker-Corkery MPH &  Mary McNaughton-Collins MD, MPH

Authors
  1. Floyd J. Fowler Jr PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Barry MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Beth Walker-Corkery MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jean-Francois Caubet MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David W. Bates MD, MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jeong Min Lee MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alison Hauser MA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mary McNaughton-Collins MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary McNaughton-Collins MD, MPH.

Additional information

Dr. Barry is a consultant for the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision-Making (a 501 (c) 3 not for profit foundation).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fowler, F.J., Barry, M.J., Walker-Corkery, B. et al. The impact of a suspicious prostate biopsy on patients’ psychological, socio-behavioral, and medical care outcomes. J Gen Intern Med 21, 715–721 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00464.x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00464.x

Key words

Search

Navigation