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

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

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.

Keywords: Behaviors; Cancer; Decision making; Genetics; Primary health care; Risk; Screening and prevention.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Danish National Committee on Health Research Ethics (journal no. 1–10–72-43-12). All study participants gave written consent to participate in the study.

Consent for publication

All study participants gave written consent for publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Lupton D. Medicine as culture: illness, disease and the body: 3rd ed. Sage: University of Sydney, Australia; 2012.
    1. Sontag S. Illness as metaphor and AIDS and its metaphors: London: penguin. 1989.
    1. Reisfield GM, Wilson GR. Use of metaphor in the discourse on cancer. JCO. 2004;22(19):4024–4027. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.03.136.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(2):69–90. doi: 10.3322/caac.20107.
    1. Berney D, Cheng L. Prostate cancer: towards the standardization and synthesis of morphology, genetics, and prognosis. Histopathology. 2012;60(1):1–3. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.04080.x.
    1. Moynihan R, Doust J, Henry D. Preventing overdiagnosis: how to stop harming the healthy. BMJ. 2012;344:e3502. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e3502.
    1. Roobol MJ, Carlsson SV. Risk stratification in prostate cancer screening. Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10(1):38–48. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2012.225.
    1. Ilic D, Neuberger MM, Djulbegovic M, Dahm P. Screening for prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;1:CD004720.
    1. 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):981–990. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113135.
    1. Kristiansen G. Diagnostic and prognostic molecular biomarkers for prostate cancer. Histopathology. 2012;60(1):125–141. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.04083.x.
    1. 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–e35.
    1. Hamilton W. Cancer diagnosis in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2010;60(571):121–128. doi: 10.3399/bjgp10X483175.
    1. Davis DS. Opportunistic testing: the death of informed consent? Health Matrix Clevel. 2013;23(1):35–54.
    1. 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):1325–1329. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp278.
    1. van Vugt HA, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ. Should prostate-specific antigen screening be offered to asymptomatic men? Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2010;10(7):1043–1053. doi: 10.1586/era.10.64.
    1. Hoffman RM, Barry MJ, Roberts RG, Sox HC. Reconciling primary care and specialist perspectives on prostate cancer screening. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(6):568–571. doi: 10.1370/afm.1399.
    1. 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):182–189. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.04.005.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1177/1049732307309000.
    1. Torta RG, Munari J. Psychological aspects of PSA testing. Nat Rev Urol. 2009;6(9):513–515. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2009.146.
    1. 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):1704–1712.
    1. 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):307–321. doi: 10.1080/10810731003686614.
    1. 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. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1305.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1370/afm.1445.
    1. 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.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.11.026.
    1. 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):1121–1129. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0317.
    1. 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):785–791. doi: 10.1038/ng.882.
    1. 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):385–391. doi: 10.1038/ng.2560.
    1. Walter FM, Emery JD. Genetic advances in medicine: has the promise been fulfilled in general practice? Br J Gen Pract. 2012;62(596):120–121. doi: 10.3399/bjgp12X629955.
    1. The Molpros Study. . Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
    1. 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): 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002452. Print 2013.
    1. Kvale S. Doing interviews: Los Angeles: sage publications. 2009.
    1. Hammersley M, Atkinson P. Ethnography : principles in practice: 3. ed. ed. London: Routledge; 2007.
    1. American Anthropological Association Statement on Ethics. . Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
    1. Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1753–1760. doi: 10.1177/1049732315617444.
    1. Kampf A. “The risk of age”? Early detection test, prostate cancer and practices of self. J Aging Stud. 2010;24(4):325–334. doi: 10.1016/j.jaging.2010.08.002.
    1. 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):303–310.
    1. 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):432–443. doi: 10.1177/1049732309332692.
    1. Oliffe J. Being screened for prostate cancer: a simple blood test or a commitment to treatment? Cancer Nurs. 2006;29(1)
    1. 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):365–371. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmm033.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i1102.
    1. 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):229–244. doi: 10.1080/1463677032000147199.
    1. 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):307–320. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00401.x.
    1. 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):430–438. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31817701c1.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(01)01657-0.
    1. 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):251–257. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.11.020.
    1. 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):3011–3023. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.11.050.
    1. Petersen A, Lupton D. The new public health : health and self in the age of risk: London: sage. 1996.
    1. 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):237–255. doi: 10.1111/maq.12148.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner