Progres en urologie : journal de l'Association francaise d'urologie et de la Societe francaise d'urologie · 2019
[Prostate MRI and screening: Practice survey with general practitioner of the "Bourgogne-Franche Comté" region].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bardet F, Frontczak A, Schneider A, Delattre B, Kleinclauss F, Cormier L
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The goal of our study was to describe general practitioner's (GP) practice regarding prostate cancer screening, the prescribing of prostate MRI and to investigate the factors associated with the prescribing of prostate MRI (pMRI).
METHODS: A survey was addressed to 1127 GP of the "Bourgogne-Franche Comté" region before the new CCAFU's guidelines publication.
RESULTS: 93 practitioners responded, giving a response rate of 8.3%. Eighty GP (86%) responded performing prostate cancer screening. The main means used were the assaying of PSA alone (23 practitioners, 28.8%) or the combination of PSA dosage and digital rectal examination (36 practitioners: 45%). It should be noted that 31 practitioners (39%) did not perform digital rectal examination as part of prostate cancer screening. Thirty two physicians prescribed pMRIs (34.5%.) before any urological consultation. The main indications were several abnormal PSA assays (27 GP, 84.4%) and/or suspicious rectal examination (15 GP, 46.9%). The main reason of this prescription was the gain of time for patient or urologist. Screening was carried out independently of the demographic characteristics of the physicians interviewed. Similarly, the prescription of prostate MRI was not related to the achievement of prostate cancer screening or the screening methods used.
CONCLUSION: It seems that the prescription of pMRI has already become part of the prescribing habits of a number of general practitioners.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
METHODS: A survey was addressed to 1127 GP of the "Bourgogne-Franche Comté" region before the new CCAFU's guidelines publication.
RESULTS: 93 practitioners responded, giving a response rate of 8.3%. Eighty GP (86%) responded performing prostate cancer screening. The main means used were the assaying of PSA alone (23 practitioners, 28.8%) or the combination of PSA dosage and digital rectal examination (36 practitioners: 45%). It should be noted that 31 practitioners (39%) did not perform digital rectal examination as part of prostate cancer screening. Thirty two physicians prescribed pMRIs (34.5%.) before any urological consultation. The main indications were several abnormal PSA assays (27 GP, 84.4%) and/or suspicious rectal examination (15 GP, 46.9%). The main reason of this prescription was the gain of time for patient or urologist. Screening was carried out independently of the demographic characteristics of the physicians interviewed. Similarly, the prescription of prostate MRI was not related to the achievement of prostate cancer screening or the screening methods used.
CONCLUSION: It seems that the prescription of pMRI has already become part of the prescribing habits of a number of general practitioners.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.