Assessment of men’s risk thresholds to proceed with prostate biopsy for the early detection of prostate cancer
- 21 Downloads
To delineate the range of “risk thresholds” for prostate biopsy to determine how improved prostate cancer (CaP) risk prediction tools may impact shared decision-making (SDM).
We conducted a cross-sectional survey study involving men 45–75 years old attending a multispecialty urology clinic. Data included demographics, personal and family prostate cancer history, and prostate biopsy history. Respondents were presented with a summary of the details, risks, and benefits of prostate biopsy, then asked to indicate the specific risk threshold (% chance) of high-grade CaP at which they would proceed with prostate biopsy.
Of a total of 103 respondents, 18 men (17%) had a personal history of CaP, and 31 (30%) had undergone prostate biopsy. The median risk threshold to proceed with prostate biopsy was 25% (interquartile range 10–50%). Risk thresholds did not vary by race, education, or employment. Personal history of CaP or prostate biopsy was significantly associated with lower mean risk thresholds (19% vs. 32% [P = 0.02] and 23% vs. 33% [P = 0.04], respectively). In the lowest versus highest risk threshold quartiles, there were significantly higher rates of CaP (36% vs. 1%, P = 0.01) and prior prostate biopsy (46% vs. 17%, P < 0.01).
Men have a wide range of risk thresholds for high-grade CaP to proceed with prostate biopsy. Men with a prior history of CaP or biopsy reported lower risk thresholds, which may reflect their greater concern for this disease. The extent to which refined risk prediction tools will improve SDM warrants further study.
KeywordsProstate cancer Biopsy Shared decision-making Risk Patient counseling
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 3.Ankerst DP, Boeck A, Freedland SJ, Jones JS, Cronin AM, Roobol MJ et al (2014) Evaluating the prostate cancer prevention trial high grade prostate cancer risk calculator in ten international biopsy cohorts: results from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group. World J Urol 32(1):185–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0869-2 Google Scholar
- 4.Benchikh A, Savage C, Cronin A, Salama G, Villers A, Lilja H et al (2010) A panel of kallikrein markers can predict outcome of prostate biopsy following clinical work-up: an independent validation study from the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening, France. BMC Cancer 10:635. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-10-635 Google Scholar
- 5.Gupta A, Roobol MJ, Savage CJ, Peltola M, Pettersson K, Scardino PT et al (2010) A four-kallikrein panel for the prediction of repeat prostate biopsy: data from the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer screening in Rotterdam, Netherlands. Br J Cancer 103(5):708–714. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605815 Google Scholar
- 9.Chiu PK, Roobol MJ, Teoh JY, Lee WM, Yip SY, Hou SM et al (2016) Prostate health index (PHI) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) predictive models for prostate cancer in the Chinese population and the role of digital rectal examination-estimated prostate volume. Int Urol Nephrol 48(10):1631–1637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-016-1350-8 Google Scholar
- 17.Sayyid RK, Dingar D, Fleshner K, Thorburn T, Diamond J, Yao E et al (2017) What false-negative rates of non-invasive testing are active surveillance patients and uro-oncologists willing to accept in order to avoid prostate biopsy? Can Urol Assoc J 11(3–4):118–122. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.4182 Google Scholar
- 19.Bioreference Laboratories (2017) 4Kscore results interpretation and test characteristics reference card. https://4kscore.com/4kscore-test-for-physicians/physicians-booklet/. Accessed 5 Feb 2019
- 20.Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Cornford P, Santis MD, Fanti S et al (2019) EAU guidelines: prostate cancer. https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/#5. Accessed 3 Jun 2019
- 21.Foley RW, Maweni RM, Gorman L, Murphy K, Lundon DJ, Durkan G et al (2016) European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators significantly outperform the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) 2.0 in the prediction of prostate cancer: a multi-institutional study. BJU Int 118(5):706–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13437 Google Scholar
- 23.Dijkstra S, Govers TM, Hendriks RJ, Schalken JA, Van Criekinge W, Van Neste L et al (2017) Cost-effectiveness of a new urinary biomarker-based risk score compared to standard of care in prostate cancer diagnostics—a decision analytical model. BJU Int 120(5):659–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13861 Google Scholar
- 24.Voigt JD, Dong Y, Linder V, Zappala S (2017) Use of the 4Kscore test to predict the risk of aggressive prostate cancer prior to prostate biopsy: overall cost savings and improved quality of care to the us healthcare system. Rev Urol 19(1):1–10Google Scholar
- 26.Gokce MI, Wang X, Frost J, Roberson P, Volk RJ, Brooks D et al (2017) Informed decision making before prostate-specific antigen screening: initial results using the American Cancer Society (ACS) Decision Aid (DA) among medically underserved men. Cancer 123(4):583–591. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30367 Google Scholar
- 27.Arterburn D, Wellman R, Westbrook EO, Ross TR, McCulloch D, Handley M et al (2015) Decision aids for benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer. Am J Manag Care 21(2):e130–e140Google Scholar
- 28.Holmes-Rovner M, Montgomery JS, Rovner DR, Scherer LD, Whitfield J, Kahn VC et al (2015) Informed decision making: assessment of the quality of physician communication about prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. Med Decis Making 35(8):999–1009. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15597226 Google Scholar