[The general practitioner's part in the initiation of diagnostic procedures in prostate cancer]. / Die Rolle des Hausarztes bei der Initiierung der Diagnostik des Prostatakarzinoms.

ABSTRACT

AIM: The aim of the study is the analysis of diagnostic procedures performed by general practitioners (GPs) leading to the detection of prostate cancer (PCA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective evaluation was performed on all 406 patients who underwent ultrasound-supported transrectal multibiopsy of the prostate in our department between January 2004 and August 2005. The GPs were interviewed by use of standardised questionnaires concerning the indication for specific examinations, referrals to the specialist, the clinical findings and results, and the GPs own urological qualification. The rate of returned questionnaires was 72.9 % (105 of 144 GPs), therefore a study group (SG) of 295 patients (72.7 %) was formed. The mean age was 67.2 (40 - 90) years. RESULTS: In 190 patients (64.4 %) primary diagnostic measures were performed by the GP herself/himself. All the other patients had already been in urological specialist treatment (n = 43), were either referred directly to an urologist for primary diagnostics (n = 42) or were diagnosed during a hospital stay (n = 3). The reasons for the performed diagnostic measures were not to be found in 17 cases. In 50.8 % of all cases the initiation of preventive medical check-ups or determination of PSA levels was done at the patient's own request. 91 of 176 digital rectal examinations (DRE) performed by GPs showed suspect findings, leading to referral to the urologist in 62 cases. PSA levels of 105 patients measured by the GPs ranged between 0.0 and 1662 ng/mL with a mean level of 29.81 and a median of 6.20 ng/mL. In 75 cases the PSA level led to a referral to the urologist. In the case of 27 patients the referral was decided because of clinical symptoms. In 39.0 % (n = 115) of the SG a PCA was detected by biopsy. In 43.0 % (n = 64) of the patients originally examined by the GPs the suspected diagnosis of a PCA based on a pathological PSA level and/or DRE proved to be correct. The GPs stated in 35.2 % (n = 37) that they had spent a certain period of time in a urological department during their medical training. Concerning referrals and the positive predictive value of DRE, there was no statistically significant different to be found in GPs without urological training. CONCLUSION: Every fifth patient in the study group showed a histologically proven PCA that had initially been suspected by a GP based on a pathological PSA level and/or DRE. This underlines the value of preventive exams in the hands of GPs. In addition, the correct and sensible use of PSA levels controls by GPs as well as a pronounced desire for preventive medical check-ups on the patient's side was shown.