Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Family Practice and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Research article

Prostate specific antigen testing policy worldwide varies greatly and seems not to be in accordance with guidelines: a systematic review

Saskia Van der Meer1, Sabine AM Löwik2, Willem H Hirdes1, Rien M Nijman3, Klaas Van der Meer2, Josette EHM Hoekstra-Weebers4 and Marco H Blanker2*

Author affiliations

1 Isala clinics, Department of Urology, Groot Wezenland 20, 8011, JW, Zwolle, The Netherlands

2 Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, P.O.Box 30.001, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands

3 Department of Urology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, P.O.Box 30.001, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands

4 University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Psychosocial services Hanzeplein 1, P.O.Box 30.001, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands

For all author emails, please log on.

Citation and License

BMC Family Practice 2012, 13:100  doi:10.1186/1471-2296-13-100

Published: 11 October 2012

Abstract

Background

Prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing is widely used, but guidelines on follow-up are unclear.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine follow-up policy after PSA testing by general practitioners (GPs) and non-urologic hospitalists, the use of a cut-off value for this policy, the reasons for repeating a PSA test after an initial normal result, the existence of a general cut-off value below which a PSA result is considered normal, and the time frame for repeating a test.

Data sources. MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo and the Cochrane library from January 1950 until May 2011.

Study eligibility criteria. Studies describing follow-up policy by GPs or non-urologic hospitalists after a primary PSA test, excluding urologists and patients with prostate cancer. Studies written in Dutch, English, French, German, Italian or Spanish were included. Excluded were studies describing follow-up policy by urologists and follow-up of patients with prostate cancer. The quality of each study was structurally assessed.

Results

Fifteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Three studies were of high quality. Follow-up differed greatly both after a normal and an abnormal PSA test result. Only one study described the reasons for not performing follow-up after an abnormal PSA result.

Conclusions

Based on the available literature, we cannot adequately assess physicians’ follow-up policy after a primary PSA test. Follow-up after a normal or raised PSA test by GPs and non-urologic hospitalists seems to a large extent not in accordance with the guidelines.

Keywords:
Prostate specific antigen; PSA; Follow-up; General practitioners; Non-urologic hospitalists; Guidelines; Systematic review