4.6 Article

Patterns of Prostate-Specific Antigen Test Use in the US, 2005-2015

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 53, 期 6, 页码 909-913

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.08.003

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural CDC HHS [CC999999] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Recommendations for prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer are placing increasing emphasis on men aged 55-69 years. The goal of the current study is to describe patterns of population-based prostate-specific antigen testing with details about that age group. Methods: National Health Interview Surveys from 2005 to 2015 were analyzed in 2017 to estimate routine prostate-specific antigen testing in the past year from self-reported data by age group (40-54, 55-69, >= 70 years), and also by risk group, defined as African American men or men with a family history of prostate cancer versus other men. Differences between successive survey years by age and risk groups were assessed by predicted margins and rate ratios with 99% CIs, using logistic regressions. Results: Prostate-specific antigen testing among men aged 55-69 years decreased from a high of 43.1% (95% CI = 40.3, 46.1) in 2008 to a low of 32.8% (95% CI = 30.8, 34.7) in 2013, with no significant change in 2015 at 33.8% (95% CI = 31.3, 36.4). Men aged >= 70 years had consistently high prevalence in all survey years, ranging from 51.1% in 2008 to 36.4% in 2015. African American men, men with a family history of prostate cancer, and other men showed a 5% absolute decrease over time, but this reduction was significant only in other men. Conclusions: Despite decreases, the absolute change in prostate-specific antigen testing for men aged 55-69 years was small (9.3%) over the study period. Men aged >= 70 years, for whom the benefits are unlikely to exceed the harms, continue to have consistently high testing prevalence. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Journal of Preventive Medicine

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据