View clinical trials related to Prostate Cancer Screening.
Filter by:The purpose of this study is to determine whether or not Magnetic Resonance Images (MRI) will identify high-grade cancers earlier and more frequently in men at high risk of developing prostate cancer.
The purpose of this retrospective observational study is to evaluate the performance of the Shared Decision Making Process scale in a sample of patients who have received a decision aid about the decision to screen or not screen for breast cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, or lung cancer.
Single site study to assess the feasibility of prostate cancer screening using an invitation for a prostate MRI scan via GP practices. This feasibility study will assess the acceptability of an MRI as a prostate cancer screening assessment and assess the prevalence of MRI defined suspicious lesions and cancer in men across a spectrum of PSA results.
The incidence of prostate cancer has been rising steadily both globally and in Malaysia. Besides an ageing population, another reason cited to explain the increase, is the corresponding increase in the prostate cancer screening rates, especially using non-invasive tests like the prostate specific antigen (PSA). General practitioners, being front liners in medicine, play an important role in helping men make an informed decision on prostate cancer screening. In Malaysia, about 50% of GPs would routinely screen asymptomatic men and 95% of them would use PSA as a screening tool. Despite this, the evidence for screening is inconclusive, as evidenced from two major trials on screening [The European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening trial (PLCO)]. Furthermore, clinical practice guidelines globally provide conflicting recommendations on this subject, and none has been published in Malaysia to date. Therefore, our study aims to determine the effectiveness of an online training module in helping GPs' better understand the controversies surrounding prostate cancer screening, and in so doing, improve their practice of screening. The investigators hypothesise that GPs who are randomised to receive their online module will be less inclined to screen unnecessarily for prostate cancer.
1. Does a one-page American College of Physicians educational flyer about the pros and cons of prostate cancer screening sent to men within two weeks of their scheduled annual health examinations in a general medicine clinic result in a different rate of prostate cancer screening than among men who were not sent the flyer? 2. Do patients find the flyer useful and understandable? Context: The use of prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer is controversial because of a lack of evidence that such screening saves lives when applied within a population and because such testing can lead to invasive downstream biopsies and aggressive treatment that is associated with a high risk of permanent side effects (e.g. impotence, incontinence). Almost all professional societies (American Cancer Society, American Urologic Association, American College of Physicians, United States Preventive Services Task Force) advocate that patients receive education and complete an informed decision-making discussion with their medical providers about the pros and cons of the PSA test, as well as their personal preferences, before proceeding with this test. Unfortunately, despite these recommendations, there is seldom sufficient time during clinic visits to achieve this goal.