Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Primary Care
Published in: BMC Primary Care 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Perceptions about screening for prostate cancer using genetic lifetime risk assessment: a qualitative study

Authors: Pia Kirkegaard, Adrian Edwards, Trine Laura Overgaard Nielsen, Torben Falck Ørntoft, Karina Dalsgaard Sørensen, Michael Borre, Flemming Bro

Published in: BMC Primary Care | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Most health authorities do not recommend screening for prostate cancer with PSA tests in asymptomatic patients who are not at increased risk. However, opportunistic screening for prostate cancer is still wanted by many patients and it is widely used in primary care clinics, with potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Better tools for risk assessment have been called for, to better target such opportunistic screening. Our aim was to explore perceptions about prostate cancer risk and subsequent opportunistic screening among patients who were not at increased risk of prostate cancer after a first PSA test plus a genetic lifetime risk assessment.

Methods

We undertook semi-structured patient interviews with recording and verbatim transcription of interviews. Data were analysed thematically.

Results

Three themes were identified: uncertainty of the nature of prostate cancer; perceived benefits of testing; and conflicting public health recommendations. Prostate cancer was spoken of as an inescapable risk in older age. The aphorism “you die with it, not from it” was prominent in the interviews but patients focused on the benefits of testing now rather than the future risks associated with treatment relating to potential overdiagnosis. Many expressed frustration with perceived mixed messages about early detection of cancer, in which on one side men feel that they are encouraged to seek medical testing to act responsibly regarding the most common cancer disease in men, and on the other side they are asked to refrain from opportunistic testing for prostate cancer. Taken together, personal risks of prostate cancer were perceived as high in spite of a normal PSA test and a genetic lifetime risk assessment showing no increased risk.

Conclusion

Patients saw prostate cancer risk as high and increasing with age. They focused on the perceived benefit of early detection using PSA testing. It was also commonly acknowledged that most cases are indolent causing no symptoms and not shortening life expectancy. There was a frustration with mixed messages about the benefit of early detection and risk of overdiagnosis. These men’s genetic lifetime risk assessment showing no increased risk did not appear to influence current intentions to get PSA testing in the future.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Lupton D. Medicine as culture: illness, disease and the body: 3rd ed. Sage: University of Sydney, Australia; 2012.
2.
Sontag S. Illness as metaphor and AIDS and its metaphors: London: penguin; 1989.
3.
Reisfield GM, Wilson GR. Use of metaphor in the discourse on cancer. JCO. 2004;22(19):4024–7.CrossRef
4.
Binderkrantz AS, Christiansen PM. Making it to the news: Interest groups in the Danish media. In Politische Interessevermittlung und Medien. Funktionen, Formen und Folgen medialer Kommunikation von Parteien, Verbänden und sozialen Bewegungen. Edited by Oehmer F. Nomos Publishers; 2013.
5.
Torring ML. Hvorfor akut kræft? Et bud på en epidemisk forståelse af tid og kræft-tendenser i Danmark [Reframing cancer as an acute condition: Towards an eclectic understanding of time and cancer in Denmark]. Tidsskrift for Sygdom og Samfund 2014, 20.
6.
Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(2):69–90.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Berney D, Cheng L. Prostate cancer: towards the standardization and synthesis of morphology, genetics, and prognosis. Histopathology. 2012;60(1):1–3.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Moynihan R, Doust J, Henry D. Preventing overdiagnosis: how to stop harming the healthy. BMJ. 2012;344:e3502.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Roobol MJ, Carlsson SV. Risk stratification in prostate cancer screening. Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10(1):38–48.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Ilic D, Neuberger MM, Djulbegovic M, Dahm P. Screening for prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;1:CD004720.
11.
Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, et al. Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(11):981–90.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Kristiansen G. Diagnostic and prognostic molecular biomarkers for prostate cancer. Histopathology. 2012;60(1):125–41.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Young SM, Bansal P, Vella ET, Finelli A, Levitt C, Loblaw A. Systematic review of clinical features of suspected prostate cancer in primary care. Can Fam Physician. 2015;61(1):e26–35.PubMedPubMedCentral
14.
15.
Davis DS. Opportunistic testing: the death of informed consent? Health Matrix Clevel. 2013;23(1):35–54.PubMed
16.
Welch HG, Albertsen PC. Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening: 1986-2005. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(19):1325–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
van Vugt HA, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ. Should prostate-specific antigen screening be offered to asymptomatic men? Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2010;10(7):1043–53.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Hoffman RM, Barry MJ, Roberts RG, Sox HC. Reconciling primary care and specialist perspectives on prostate cancer screening. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(6):568–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Squiers LB, Bann CM, Dolina SE, Tzeng J, McCormack L, Kamerow D. Prostate-specific antigen testing: men’s responses to 2012 recommendation against screening. Am J Prev Med. 2013;45(2):182–9.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Chapple A, Ziebland S, Hewitson P, McPherson A. Why men in the United Kingdom still want the prostate specific antigen test. Qual Health Res. 2008;18(1):56–64.CrossRefPubMed
21.
22.
Taylor KL, Williams RM, Davis K, Luta G, Penek S, Barry S, et al. Decision making in prostate cancer screening using decision aids vs usual care: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(18):1704–12.PubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Rubel SK, Miller JW, Stephens RL, Xu Y, Scholl LE, Holden EW, et al. Testing the effects of a decision aid for prostate cancer screening. J Health Commun. 2010;15(3):307–21.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Evans R, Joseph-Williams N, Edwards A, Newcombe RG, Wright P, Kinnersley P, et al. Supporting informed decision making for prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing on the web: an online randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(3):e27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Volk RJ, Linder SK, Kallen MA, Galliher JM, Spano MS, Mullen PD, Spann SJ. Primary care physicians’ use of an informed decision-making process for prostate cancer screening. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(1):67–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Edwards AG, Naik G, Ahmed H, Elwyn GJ, Pickles T, Hood K, Playle R. Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2:CD001865.
27.
Edwards A, Gray J, Clarke A, Dundon J, Elwyn G, Gaff C, et al. Interventions to improve risk communication in clinical genetics: systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;71(1):4–25.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Amin Al Olama A, Benlloch S, Antoniou AC, Giles GG, Severi G, Neal DE, et al. Risk analysis of prostate cancer in PRACTICAL, a multinational consortium, using 25 known prostate cancer susceptibility loci. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2015;24(7):1121–9.CrossRef
29.
Kote-Jarai Z, Olama AA, Giles GG, Severi G, Schleutker J, Weischer M, et al. Seven prostate cancer susceptibility loci identified by a multi-stage genome-wide association study. Nat Genet. 2011;43(8):785–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Eeles RA, Olama AA, Benlloch S, Saunders EJ, Leongamornlert DA, Tymrakiewicz M, et al. Identification of 23 new prostate cancer susceptibility loci using the iCOGS custom genotyping array. Nat Genet. 2013;45(4):385–91. 391e1-2CrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
The Molpros Study. https://​molpros.​dk/​.​ Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
33.
Kirkegaard P, Vedsted P, Edwards A, Fenger-Gron M, Bro F. A cluster-randomised, parallel group, controlled intervention study of genetic prostate cancer risk assessment and use of PSA tests in general practice--the ProCaRis study: study protocol. BMJ Open 2013, 3(3): https://​doi.​org/​10.​1136/​bmjopen-2012-002452. Print 2013.
34.
Kvale S. Doing interviews: Los Angeles: sage publications; 2009.
35.
Hammersley M, Atkinson P. Ethnography : principles in practice: 3. ed. ed. London: Routledge; 2007.
36.
37.
Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1753–60.CrossRef
38.
Kampf A. “The risk of age”? Early detection test, prostate cancer and practices of self. J Aging Stud. 2010;24(4):325–34.CrossRef
39.
Evans R, Edwards AG, Elwyn G, Watson E, Grol R, Brett J, Austoker J. “It’s a maybe test”: men’s experiences of prostate specific antigen testing in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57(537):303–10.PubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Oliffe JL, Davison BJ, Pickles T, Mroz L. The self-management of uncertainty among men undertaking active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Qual Health Res. 2009;19(4):432–43.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Oliffe J. Being screened for prostate cancer: a simple blood test or a commitment to treatment? Cancer Nurs. 2006;29(1)
42.
Rai T, Clements A, Bukach C, Shine B, Austoker J, Watson E. What influences men’s decision to have a prostate-specific antigen test? A qualitative study. Fam Pract. 2007;24(4):365–71.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Hollands GJ, French DP, Griffin SJ, Prevost AT, Sutton S, King S, Marteau TM. The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: systematic review with meta-analysis. BMJ. 2016;352:i1102.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Hoeyer K. Science is really needed—that’s all I know’: informed consent and the non-verbal practices of collecting blood for genetic research in northern Sweden. New Genet Soc. 2003;22(3):229–44.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Edwards A, Elwyn G. Inside the black box of shared decision making: distinguishing between the process of involvement and who makes the decision. Health Expect. 2006;9(4):307–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Cowan R, Meiser B, Giles GG, Lindeman GJ, Gaff CL. The beliefs, and reported and intended behaviors of unaffected men in response to their family history of prostate cancer. Genetics in Medicine. 2008;10(6):430–8.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Cormier L, Kwan L, Reid K, Litwin MS. Knowledge and beliefs among brothers and sons of men with prostate cancer. Urology. 2002;59(6):895–900.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Matthew AG, Paradiso C, Currie KL, Finelli A, Hartman M, Trachtenberg L, et al. Examining risk perception among men with a family history of prostate cancer. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;85(2):251–7.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Pfeffer N, Laws S. ‘It’s only a blood test’: what people know and think about venepuncture and blood. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(12):3011–23.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Petersen A, Lupton D. The new public health : health and self in the age of risk: London: sage; 1996.
51.
Andersen RS, Torring ML, Vedsted P. Global Health care-seeking discourses facing local clinical realities: exploring the case of cancer. Med Anthropol Q. 2015;29(2):237–55.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Perceptions about screening for prostate cancer using genetic lifetime risk assessment: a qualitative study
Authors
Pia Kirkegaard
Adrian Edwards
Trine Laura Overgaard Nielsen
Torben Falck Ørntoft
Karina Dalsgaard Sørensen
Michael Borre
Flemming Bro
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Primary Care / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 2731-4553
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-018-0717-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Primary Care 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

The effect of a new lifetime-cardiovascular-risk display on patients’ motivation to participate in shared decision-making

Research article

Safety work and risk management as burdens of treatment in primary care: insights from a focused ethnographic study of patients with multimorbidity

Research article

Stroke follow-up in primary care: a prospective cohort study on guideline adherence

Research article

Do general practice patients with and without appointment differ? Cross-sectional study

Research article

Symptoms that may be stress-related and lead to exhaustion disorder: a retrospective medical chart review in Swedish primary care

Research article

Patient satisfaction with primary healthcare services: are there any links with patients’ symptoms of anxiety and depression?