4.7 Article

National Prostate Cancer Screening Rates After the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Discouraging Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Screening

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 33, 期 22, 页码 2416-U18

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.6532

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose In 2012, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) discouraged prostate-specific antigen (PSA) -based prostate cancer screening. Previous USPSTF recommendations did not appreciably alter prostate cancer screening. Therefore, we designed a trend analysis to determine the population-based impact of the 2012 recommendation. Methods The nationally representative National Health Interview Survey was used to estimate the proportion of men age 40 years and older who saw a physician and were screened for prostate cancer in 2013. An externally validated 9-year mortality index was used to analyze screening rates based on remaining life expectancy. Screening rates from 2005, 2010, and 2013 were compared using logistic regression. Results PSA-based screening did not significantly change from 2010 to 2013 among 40- to 49-year-old men (from 12.5% to 11.2%; P = .4). Screening rates significantly declined in men age 50 to 59 years (from 33.2% to 24.8%; P < .01), age 60 to 74 years (from 51.2% to 43.6%; P < .01), and age 75 years or older (from 43.9% to 37.1%; P = .03). A large percentage of men were screened for prostate cancer despite a high risk (> 52%) of 9-year mortality, including approximately one third of men older than age 75 years. Approximately 1.4 million men age 65 years or older with a high risk (> 52%) of 9-year mortality were screened in 2013. Conclusion Prostate cancer screening significantly declined among men older than age 50 years after the 2012 USPSTF guideline discouraging PSA-based screening. A significant proportion of men continue to be screened despite a high risk of 9-year mortality, including one third of men age 75 years and older. (C) 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

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

4.7
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