4.5 Article

Use of the prostate-specific antigen test among US men: Findings from the 2005 national health interview survey

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 636-644

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2709

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although evidence that prostate cancer deaths are reduced by screening for elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration coupled with early diagnosis and treatment is insufficient to advocate routine screening for prostate cancer, PSA testing has become more common in the past decade. We examined characteristics that might influence testing and compared test use between men ages 40 to 49 and 50 to 79 years. Methods: We used data from 7,669 participants with no history of prostate cancer in the 2005 National Health Interview Survey. Results: Among men reporting about PSA testing, an estimated 16% of 40- to 49-year-old men and 49% of 50- to 79-year-old men had a PSA test in the past 2 years. In multivariate analyses, among men ages 40 to 49 years, non-Hispanic Black men were more likely (P < 0.05) to have had a PSA test than non-Hispanic White men. We found no significant difference by race/ ethnicity in men ages 50 to 79 years. Higher education, higher poverty threshold, usual source of medical care, family history of prostate cancer, and comorbid conditions were associated with increased PSA test use in both age groups. Additionally, men ages 50 to 79 years born in the United States, who were married, had private or military health insurance, and had been diagnosed with another cancer type were more likely to be tested. Conclusions: Findings from the multivariate analyses indicated significantly higher PSA test use among younger non-Hispanic Black men than among non-Hispanic White men. These findings may indicate that healthcare providers are getting and conveying the message of increased risk of prostate cancer among African American men.

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

4.5
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