The STHLM3-model, Risk-based Prostate Cancer Testing Identifies Men at High Risk Without Inducing Negative Psychosocial Effects.

BACKGROUND: The new STHLM3 test, combining protein markers, genetic markers, and clinical data to assess a man's prostate cancer (PCa) risk, has been investigated in Sweden within the frame of the STHLM3 trial. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the STHLM3 test influences men's worry level, PCa knowledge, attitude, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Invitations with login to the web survey were mailed to 10 000 men, 50-69 yr of age, who were eligible for the STHLM3 trial. The survey was sent 3 mo before invitation to the STHLM3 trial (baseline) and 5 mo after STHLM3 (follow-up). At baseline, the men were unaware of the upcoming invitation to STHLM3. The survey covered the following: PCa-specific worry and perceived vulnerability, knowledge about PCa, attitude toward PCa testing and health behavior, and HRQoL. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Survey scores were compared between baseline and follow-up by using the nonparametric Wilcoxon-signed rank tests for paired samples. Analysis of covariance was performed for PCa risk group comparisons. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 994 men (10%) responded to our survey at baseline and follow-up, and were assessed as follows: low risk: 421 men; intermediate risk: 421 men; and high risk:152, of whom 59 were diagnosed with PCa after further investigation. In men assessed as having low and intermediate risk, level of worrying decreased at follow-up (p < 0.001), whereas no changes were observed in men at high risk. Moreover, no HRQoL changes were observed over time. The low response rate is the main limitation. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the STHLM3 model, a risk-based PCa test, showed no negative impact on the well-being of men. PATIENT SUMMARY: Since our results suggest that the risk-based screening as used in STHLM3 did not induce negative psychological effects on the participants, we can recommend this risk-based approach for population-based prostate cancer screening.

Predictors of participation in risk-based prostate cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of risk-based prostate cancer screening has been proposed as a means to reduce the harms of PSA screening. Little is known, however, about the factors influencing men's decision to attend a prostate cancer screening based on a risk assessment. METHOD: We sent postal invitations with a login to a survey to 10.000 men, three months before invitation to a risk-based prostate cancer screening. Prostate cancer specific worry, prostate cancer-related knowledge, health behaviour, and health related quality of life were used as predictors of subsequent participation. Participation to risk-based prostate cancer screening was defined as providing a blood sample for the STHLM3 trial, a study evaluating a risk-based model that predicts the risk for aggressive prostate cancer. RESULTS: With a response rate of 20%, 1.347 men (70%) participated in ensuing risk-based prostate cancer screening three months later whereas 568 men (30%) declined participation in the STHLM3-study. These decliners reported less worry and feeling less vulnerable to prostate cancer and responded "Do not know" more often than participants when asked questions about prostate cancer knowledge. Participants reported greater benefits of prostate testing (p = 0.0005), less barriers to prostate testing (p<0.0001), and higher intention to attend prostate cancer testing (p<0.0001) than decliners. Finally, participants reported better overall health than decliners (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Prostate cancer worry, PC knowledge, health behaviour and quality of life were identified as predictors of participation in risk-based prostate cancer screening. Targeting these predictors may improve the participation rates. These results can inform policymaking for future population-based prostate cancer screening programs that should address potential worry in men and lack of knowledge about prostate cancer.

Effects of pre-notification, invitation length, questionnaire length and reminder on participation rate: a quasi-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Improving participation rates in epidemiologic studies using questionnaires and biological sampling is important for the generalizability of the outcome. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of pre-notification, invitation length, questionnaire length, and reminder on participation rate and to investigate whether some factors contributed to participants doing both the questionnaire and blood sampling as oppose to only one part. METHODS: Our study was embedded within the pilot testing of a large population-based study about prostate cancer screening. Our study sample consisted of 28.134 men between 50 and 69 years of age and living in the region of Stockholm (Sweden) invited to respond to a web-based questionnaire and to provide blood for prostate cancer testing. The men were randomly allocated according to birth of date to receive either: (a) a pre-notification postcard or not; (b) a shorter or a longer invitation letter; (c) a shorter or a longer web-based questionnaire, and (d) a reminder or not. The effects of the survey design factors were tested using chi-square. RESULTS: The use of a pre-notification (p < 0.0001), a longer questionnaire (p = 0.004) and the use of a reminder (p = 0.02) were associated with an increase in overall participation, i.e. responding to the questionnaire or providing blood for PCT or performing both components. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this pilot study justified the use of a pre-notification and a reminder in the following large population based study since the benefits of increased participation traded off against the greater costs incurred. Furthermore, we were able to use the longer version of the questionnaire, which allowed us to collect more information without risking a lower response rate.

Public interest in and acceptability of the prospect of risk-stratified screening for breast and prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: For risk-stratified screening to be implemented as a screening program for breast and prostate cancer it has to be accepted among the general population. Investigating public interest in stratified screening and its acceptability to the public is therefore essential since as yet little is known. METHOD: Cross-sectional web survey sent to a sample of 10 000 individuals (20-74 years of age) representative of the Swedish population as registered in 2009. RESULTS: Among the responders (28%), a vast majority (94%) expressed an interest in knowing their breast or prostate cancer risk and stated wanting to know to 'avoid worrying'. Men and women were equally interested in knowing their prostate and breast cancer risk, respectively. However, men showed more certainty. Trusting the healthcare workers with personal information (63%) as well as genetic information (70%), in order to calculate the risk, did not seem to be a major issue. Furthermore, 87% would agree to get screened more often if identified with a high risk, whereas, if identified with a low risk, only 27% would agree to get screened less often. Finally, although a consultation with a physician seemed to be the preferred way to communicate the risk, a majority would agree to receive it via a letter or a phone call. CONCLUSION: Risk-stratified screening has the possibility to be accepted by the general public. Knowledge about interest and acceptability of the prospect of risk-stratified screening for breast and prostate cancer will help when implementing new screening strategies.