Factors Related to Prostate-Specific Antigen–Based Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: Retrospective Cohort Study of 120,587 French Men Over the Age of 50 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend avoiding prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening in the elderly when life expectancy is less than 10 years. For younger men, most recommendations encourage a shared decision-making process taking into account patient comorbidities. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the performance of PSA-based prostate cancer screening in men older than 74 years and assess whether the presence (vs absence) of comorbidities was related to the performance of PSA testing in younger men aged 50 to 74 years who were eligible for screening. METHODS: We analyzed data from the French national health care database (Loire-Atlantique geographic area). We reported the follow-up of two cohorts of men from April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2016: 22,480 men aged over 74 years and 98,107 men aged 50 to 74 years. We analyzed whether these patients underwent PSA testing after 2 years of follow-up and whether PSA testing performance was related to the following patient-related variables: age, low income, proxy measures indicative of major comorbidities (repeated ambulance transportation, having one of 30 chronic diseases, taking 5 or more drugs per day), or proxy measures indicative of specific comorbidities (cancer diseases, cardiovascular diseases, or psychiatric disorders). Statistical analysis was based on a multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression. RESULTS: The proportion of patients who underwent a PSA-based screening test was 41.35% (9296/22,480) among men older than 74 years versus 41.05% (40,275/98,107) among men aged 50 to 74 years. The following factors were associated with less frequent PSA testing in men older than 74 years-age (odds ratio [OR] 0.89, 95% CI 0.88-0.89), low income (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05-0.69), suffering from a chronic disease (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76-0.88), repeated ambulance transportation (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.31-0.44), diabetes requiring insulin (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.43-0.60), dementia (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55-0.84), and antipsychotic treatment (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.51-0.75)-whereas cardiovascular drug treatment was associated with more frequent PSA testing (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.53-1.84). The following factors were associated with less frequent PSA testing in men aged 50 to 74 years-low income (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.55-0.68); nonspecific conditions related to frailty: suffering from a chronic disease (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.76-0.83), repeated ambulance transportation (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.23-0.38), or chronic treatment with 5 or more drugs (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83-0.96); and various specific comorbidities: anticancer drug treatment (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.83), diabetes requiring insulin (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.49-0.61), and antiaggregant treatment (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.96)-whereas older age (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.07-1.08) and treatment with other cardiovascular drugs (OR 2.23, 95% CI 2.15-2.32) were associated with more frequent PSA testing. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, 41.35% (9296/22,480) of French men older than 74 years had a PSA-based screening test. Although it depends on patient comorbidities, PSA testing remains inappropriate in certain populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".