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

Pia Kirkegaard, Peter Vedsted, Adrian Edwards, Morten Fenger-Grøn, Flemming Bro, Pia Kirkegaard, Peter Vedsted, Adrian Edwards, Morten Fenger-Grøn, Flemming Bro

Abstract

Introduction: Unsystematic screening for prostate cancer (PCa) is common, causing a high number of false-positive results. Valid instruments for assessment of individual risk of PCa have been called for. A DNA-based genetic test has been tested retrospectively. The clinical use of this test needs further investigation. The primary objective is to evaluate the impact on the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests of introducing genetic PCa risk assessment in general practice. The secondary objectives are to evaluate PCa-related patient experiences, and to explore sociocultural aspects of genetic risk assessment in patients at high PCa risk.

Methods and analysis: The study is a cluster-randomised, controlled intervention study with practice as the unit of randomisation. We expect 140 practices to accept participation and include a total of 1244 patients in 4 months. Patients requesting a PSA test in the intervention group practices will be offered a genetic PCa risk assessment. Patients requesting a PSA test in the control group practices will be handled according to current guidelines. Data will be collected from registers, patient questionnaires and interviews. Quantitative data will be analysed according to intention-to-treat principles. Baseline characteristics will be compared between groups. Longitudinal analyses will include time in risk, and multivariable analysis will be conducted to evaluate the influence of general practitioner and patient-specific variables on future PSA testing. Interview data will be transcribed verbatim and analysed from a social-constructivist perspective.

Ethics and dissemination: Consent will be obtained from patients who can withdraw from the study at any time. The study provides data to the ongoing conceptual and ethical discussions about genetic risk assessment and classification of low-risk and high-risk individuals. The intervention model might be applicable to other screening areas regarding risk of cancer with identified genetic components, for example, colon cancer. The study is registered at the ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01739062).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Participants.

References

    1. Damber J, Aus G. Prostate cancer. Lancet 2008;371:1710–21
    1. Hoffman RM. Screening for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2011;365:2013–19
    1. Kim J, Davis JW. Prostate cancer screening—time to abandon one-size-fits-all approach? JAMA 2011;306:2717–18
    1. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1320–8
    1. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med 2012;366:981–90
    1. Smith DP, King MT, Egger S, et al. Quality of life three years after diagnosis of localised prostate cancer: population based cohort study. BMJ 2009;339:b4817.
    1. Ilic D, O'Connor D, Green S, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: an updated Cochrane systematic review. BJU Int 2011;107:882–91
    1. Hansen BL, Lose G, McNair SB, et al. [DSAM: klinisk vejledning for almen medicin. Udredning og behandling af nedre urinvejssymptomer hos mænd og kvinder]. 1st edition. Viby J, Scanprinteds. Dansk Selskab for Almen Medicin og Fonden for Tidsskrift for Praktisk Lægegerning. 2009. .
    1. Mukai TO, Bro F, Pedersen KV, et al. Use of prostate-specific antigen testing. Ugeskr Laeger 2010;172:696–700
    1. Aly M, Wiklund F, Xu J, et al. Polygenic risk score improves prostate cancer risk prediction: results from the Stockholm-1 cohort study. Eur Urol 2011;60:21–8
    1. Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Roobol MJ, et al. The relationship between prostate-specific antigen and prostate cancer risk: the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:4374–81
    1. Jin G, Lu L, Cooney KA, et al. Validation of prostate cancer risk-related loci identified from genome-wide association studies using family-based association analysis: evidence from the International Consortium for Prostate Cancer Genetics (ICPCG). Hum Genet 2012;131:1095–103
    1. Zhu X, Albertsen PC, Andriole GL, et al. Risk-based prostate cancer screening. Eur Urol 2012;61:652–61
    1. Roobol MJ, Steyerberg EW, Kranse R, et al. A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2010;57:79–85
    1. Doukas DJ, Li Y. Men's values-based factors on prostate cancer risk genetic testing: a telephone survey. BMC Med Genet 2004;5:28.
    1. Bratt O, Kristoffersson U, Lundgren R, et al. Sons of men with prostate cancer: their attitudes regarding possible inheritance of prostate cancer, screening, and genetic testing. Urology 1997;50:360–5
    1. Bratt O, Damber JE, Emanuelsson M, et al. Risk perception, screening practice and interest in genetic testing among unaffected men in families with hereditary prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer 2000;36:235–41
    1. James KM, Cowl CT, Tilburt JC, et al. Impact of direct-to-consumer predictive genomic testing on risk perception and worry among patients receiving routine care in a preventive health clinic. Mayo Clin Proc 2011;86:933–40
    1. Jacobsen PB, Lamonde LA, Honour M, et al. Relation of family history of prostate cancer to perceived vulnerability and screening behavior. Psychooncology 2004;13:80–5
    1. Bratt O, Emanuelsson M, Gronberg H. Psychological aspects of screening in families with hereditary prostate cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2003;37:5–9
    1. Bratt O, Damber JE, Emanuelsson M, et al. Risk perception, screening practice and interest in genetic testing among unaffected men in families with hereditary prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer 2000; 36:235–41
    1. Spain P, Carpenter WR, Talcott JA, et al. Perceived family history risk and symptomatic diagnosis of prostate cancer: the North Carolina Prostate Cancer Outcomes study. Cancer 2008;113:2180–7
    1. Julian-Reynier C, Mancini J, Mouret-Fourme E, et al. Cancer risk management strategies and perceptions of unaffected women 5 years after predictive genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations. Eur J Hum Genet 2011;19:500–6
    1. Leblond D, Bredart A, Dolbeault S, et al. Cognitive, emotional and behavioral impact of an uncertain outcome after study of BRCA1/2: review of the literature. Bull Cancer 2011;98:184–98
    1. Quillin JM, Bodurtha JN, McClish D, et al. Genetic risk, perceived risk, and cancer worry in daughters of breast cancer patients. J Genet Couns 2011;20:157–64
    1. Menko FH, Jansen AM, Stoel RD, et al. Perceiving cancer-risks and heredity-likelihood in genetic-counseling: how counselees recall and interpret BRCA 1/2-test results. Clin Genet 2011;79:207–18
    1. Henneman L, Timmermans DR, Bouwman CM, et al. ‘A low risk is still a risk’: exploring women's attitudes towards genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility in order to target disease prevention. Public Health Genomics 2011;14:238–47
    1. Hallowell N, Foster C, Eeles R, et al. Accommodating risk: responses to BRCA1/2 genetic testing of women who have had cancer. Soc Sci Med 2004;59:553–65
    1. Graves KD, Gatammah R, Peshkin BN, et al. BRCA1/2 genetic testing uptake and psychosocial outcomes in men. Fam Cancer 2011;10:213–23
    1. Schiffman SC, Chagpar AB. Does a family history of male breast cancer influence risk perception and use of genetic testing? Am Surg 2010;76:879–82
    1. Hallowell N, Ardern-Jones A, Eeles R, et al. Communication about genetic testing in families of male BRCA1/2 carriers and non-carriers: patterns, priorities and problems. Clin Genet 2005;67:492–502
    1. Hallowell N, Ardern-Jones A, Eeles R, et al. Men's decision-making about predictive BRCA1/2 testing: the role of family. J Genet Couns 2005;14:207–17
    1. White A, Richardson N. Gendered epidemiology: making men's health visible in epidemiological research. Public Health 2011;125:407–10
    1. White AK, Thomson CS, Forman D, et al. Men's health and the excess burden of cancer in men. Eur Urol Suppl 2010;9:467–70
    1. Bates LM, Hankivsky O, Springer KW. Gender and health inequities: a comment on the final report of the WHO commission on the social determinants of health. Soc Sci Med 2009;69:1002–4
    1. Byrnes JP, Miller DC, Schafer WD. Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 1999;125:367–83
    1. Schubert R. Analyzing and managing risks—on the importance of gender differences in risk attitudes. Manage Finance 2006;32:706
    1. Gustafson PE. Gender differences in risk perception: theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Anal 1998;18:805.
    1. Pedersen KM, Andersen JS, Sondergaard J. General practice and primary health care in Denmark. J Am Board Fam Med 2012;25(Suppl 1):S34–8
    1. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Hood K, et al. The development of COMRADE—a patient-based outcome measure to evaluate the effectiveness of risk communication and treatment decision making in consultations . Patient Educ Couns 2003;50:311–22
    1. Hilden PK, Middelthon AL. Qualitative methods in medical research—an ethnographic perspective. Tidsskr nor Laegeforen 2002;122:2473–6
    1. Hammersley M, Atkinson P. Ethnography. Principles in practice. London: Routledge, 2002
    1. Reeves S, Kuper A, Hodges BD. Qualitative research methodologies: ethnography. BMJ 2008;337:a1020.
    1. Seale C, Charteris-Black J, Dumelow C, et al. The effect of joint interviewing on the performance of gender. Field Methods 2008;20:1–22
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. For the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c332.
    1. Tulloch J, Lupton D. Risk and everyday life. London: SAGE Publications, 2003
    1. Lupton D. Risk. London: Routledge, 1999
    1. Douglas M. Risk and blame: essays in cultural theory. London: Routledge, 1994
    1. Kavanagh AM, Broom DH. Embodied risk: my body, myself? Soc Sci Med 1998;46:437–44
    1. Novas C, Rose N. Genetic risk and the birth of the somatic individual. Econ Soc 2000;29:485–513
    1. Lock M. Part 3: the human in the body demoting the genetic body. Anthropologica 2009;51:159–72
    1. Lock M, Freeman J, Chilibeck G, et al. Susceptibility genes and the question of embodied identity. Med Anthropol Q 2007;21:256–76
    1. Chilibeck G, Lock M, Sehdev M. Postgenomics, uncertain futures, and the familiarization of susceptibility genes. Soc Sci Med 2011;72:1768–75
    1. Han PK, Klein WM, Lehman TC, et al. Laypersons’ responses to the communication of uncertainty regarding cancer risk estimates. Med Decis Making 2009;29:391–403
    1. Lee SJ. Uncertain futures: individual risk and social context in decision-making in cancer screening. Health Risk Soc 2010;12:101–17
    1. Boholm Å. The cultural nature of risk: can there be an anthropology of uncertainty? Ethnos 2003;68:159
    1. Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med 2012;367:1998–2005
    1. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Black WC, et al. Cancer screening campaigns—getting past uninformative persuasion . N Engl J Med 2012;367:1677–9
    1. Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, et al. Mortality results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:725–32
    1. Rantala J, Platten U, Lindgren G, et al. Risk perception after genetic counseling in patients with increased risk of cancer. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 2009;7:15.
    1. Conrad P. The shifting engines of medicalization. J Health Soc Behav 2005;46:3–14
    1. Timmermans S, Haas S. Towards a sociology of disease. Sociol Health Illn 2008;30:659–76
    1. Lipworth WL, Davey HM, Carter SM, et al. Beliefs and beyond: what can we learn from qualitative studies of lay people's understandings of cancer risk? Health Expect 2010;13:113–24
    1. Petersen A, Lupton D. The new public health: health and self in the age of risk. London: SAGE, 1996

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit