Korean J Urol.  2014 Jul;55(7):460-464. 10.4111/kju.2014.55.7.460.

Factors Influencing the Acceptance of Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsies

• Hwang JW
• Bang WJ
• Oh CY
• Yoo C
• Cho JS

• KMID: 1794574
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2014.55.7.460

Abstract

PURPOSE
This study aimed to improve prostate biopsy compliance by analyzing the factors that influence the acceptance of prostate biopsy by patients to whom transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy is recommended for suspected prostate cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The subjects of this study were 268 patients to whom TRUS-guided prostate biopsy was recommended from January to June 2011 and who completed a questionnaire. Patients who showed a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) increase to more than 4.0 ng/mL or abnormal findings on a digital rectal examination and TRUS were recommended to undergo prostate biopsy. The questionnaire consisted of 9 questions about the subjects' demographic characteristics and 15 questions that assessed their knowledge of prostate disease. Fisher exact probability test was conducted to assess the influence of the demographic characteristics and levels of knowledge of prostate disease on acceptance of prostate biopsy.
RESULTS
The mean age of the subjects was 66.2 years (range, 43-83 years). Of the cohort, 188 patients (70.7%) agreed to the prostate biopsy and 78 patients (29.3%) refused. In terms of demographic characteristics, the patients' acceptance of prostate biopsy was associated only with education level. Patients with relatively lower education levels had a higher acceptance rate for prostate biopsy (80.0% vs. 65.9%, p=0.018). Other demographic factors, as well as the degree of knowledge of prostate disease, had no significant effect on the acceptance rate.
CONCLUSIONS
The patients' acceptance of prostate biopsy can be influenced by demographic characteristics, especially education level. Therefore, when prostate biopsy is recommended to patients, their demographic characteristics should be taken into consideration.

Keyword

Compliance; Demography; Prostatic neoplasms

MeSH Terms

Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Biopsy, Needle/methods/psychology
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Humans
Kallikreins/blood
Male
Middle Aged
*Patient Acceptance of Health Care
Prospective Studies
Prostate-Specific Antigen/blood
Prostatic Neoplasms/*pathology/psychology/ultrasonography
Republic of Korea
Socioeconomic Factors
Ultrasonography, Interventional
Kallikreins
Prostate-Specific Antigen

Reference

1. Ministry of Health and Welfare, Korea Central Cancer Registry, National Cancer Center. Annual report of cancer statistics in Korea in 2009. Goyang: Ministry of Health and Welfare, Korea Central Cancer Registry, National Cancer Center;2011.

2. Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Slawin KM, Brawer MK, Flanigan RC, Patel A, et al. Use of the percentage of free prostate-specific antigen to enhance differentiation of prostate cancer from benign prostatic disease: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. JAMA. 1998; 279:1542–1547.

3. Roehrborn CG, Pickens GJ, Sanders JS. Diagnostic yield of repeated transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies stratified by specific histopathologic diagnoses and prostate specific antigen levels. Urology. 1996; 47:347–352.

4. 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; 24:365–371.

5. Hu JC, Kwan L, Krupski TL, Anger JT, Maliski SL, Connor S, et al. Determinants of treatment regret in low-income, uninsured men with prostate cancer. Urology. 2008; 72:1274–1279.

6. Nijs HG, Essink-Bot ML, DeKoning HJ, Kirkels WJ, Schroder FH. Why do men refuse or attend population-based screening for prostate cancer? J Public Health Med. 2000; 22:312–316.

7. Williams RM, Zincke NL, Turner RO, Davis JL, Davis KM, Schwartz MD, et al. Prostate cancer screening and shared decision-making preferences among African-American members of the Prince Hall Masons. Psychooncology. 2008; 17:1006–1013.

8. Masood J, Khan A, Sheikh T, Buchholz N, Miller R, Ball AJ. PSA--"prostate-specific antigen" or "patient stress & anxiety": a questionnaire study. Int Urol Nephrol. 2007; 39:1103–1105.

9. Avery KN, Blazeby JM, Lane JA, Neal DE, Hamdy FC, Donovan JL. Decision-making about PSA testing and prostate biopsies: a qualitative study embedded in a primary care randomised trial. Eur Urol. 2008; 53:1186–1193.

10. Pinquart M, Duberstein PR. Information needs and decision-making processes in older cancer patients. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2004; 51:69–80.

11. Avery KN, Metcalfe C, Blazeby JM, Lane JA, Neal DE, Hamdy FC, et al. Prostate-specific antigen testing and prostate biopsy: are self-reported lower urinary tract symptoms and health-related quality of life associated with the decision to undergo these investigations? BJU Int. 2008; 102:1629–1633.

12. Norcross WA, Ramirez C, Palinkas LA. The influence of women on the health care-seeking behavior of men. J Fam Pract. 1996; 43:475–480.

13. Meiser B, Cowan R, Costello A, Giles GG, Lindeman GJ, Gaff CL. Prostate cancer screening in men with a family history of prostate cancer: the role of partners in influencing men's screening uptake. Urology. 2007; 70:738–742.

14. Viswanath K, Breen N, Meissner H, Moser RP, Hesse B, Steele WR, et al. Cancer knowledge and disparities in the information age. J Health Commun. 2006; 11:Suppl 1. 1–17.

15. Brar R, Maliski SL, Kwan L, Krupski TL, Litwin MS. Changes in quality of life among low-income men treated for prostate cancer. Urology. 2005; 66:344–349.

16. Watson E, Hewitson P, Brett J, Bukach C, Evans R, Edwards A, et al. Informed decision making and prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer: a randomised controlled trial exploring the impact of a brief patient decision aid on men's knowledge, attitudes and intention to be tested. Patient Educ Couns. 2006; 63:367–379.

17. Yasunaga H, Ide H, Imamura T, Ohe K. Benefit evaluation of mass screening for prostate cancer: willingness-to-pay measurement using contingent valuation. Urology. 2006; 68:1046–1050.