P. Mbey, D. Moningo, Augustin Kibonge Mukala, Patrick Zihalirwa Ciza, Igor Mujinga Wa Mujinga, M. Ilunga, Gabriel Waratch Unen Wakunga, O. Mukuku, W. Arung
{"title":"Individual prostate cancer screening: Practice survey with general practitioner of Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of Congo","authors":"P. Mbey, D. Moningo, Augustin Kibonge Mukala, Patrick Zihalirwa Ciza, Igor Mujinga Wa Mujinga, M. Ilunga, Gabriel Waratch Unen Wakunga, O. Mukuku, W. Arung","doi":"10.25082/CCR.2021.01.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To analyze the practices of general practitioners (GPs) in terms of recommendations on individual screening for prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: An anonymous cross-sectional survey using a pre-established questionnaire was conducted among 193 GPs in the city of Lubumbashi from May 1st to July 31st, 2020. The questionnaire included three parts: identity criteria of GPs, screening practice and the opinion of GPs on the recommendations. Results: The participation rate was 79%. Eighty-two-point nine percent of respondents said they offered screening for PCa; 42.5% of them said they offered this screening to all men within a certain age limit, ranging between 50 to 75 years in 38.8% of the cases. Only 12.5% of GPs provided complete prior information to their patients. Thirty-six-point three percent of GPs reported combining digital rectal examination with total PSA testing, but in the presence of an abnormality, 60.6% reported that they referred their patients directly to the urologist without ordering other additional investigations (first or second line). Finally, 32.7% of GPs found that the recommendations disseminated were appropriate for their practice. Conclusion: Individual screening for PCa is widely proposed; but there are differences between the practices reported by GPs and official recommendations of learned societies. Our study highlights the need to popularize the recommendations of learned societies to GPs.","PeriodicalId":72728,"journal":{"name":"Current cancer reports","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current cancer reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25082/CCR.2021.01.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the practices of general practitioners (GPs) in terms of recommendations on individual screening for prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: An anonymous cross-sectional survey using a pre-established questionnaire was conducted among 193 GPs in the city of Lubumbashi from May 1st to July 31st, 2020. The questionnaire included three parts: identity criteria of GPs, screening practice and the opinion of GPs on the recommendations. Results: The participation rate was 79%. Eighty-two-point nine percent of respondents said they offered screening for PCa; 42.5% of them said they offered this screening to all men within a certain age limit, ranging between 50 to 75 years in 38.8% of the cases. Only 12.5% of GPs provided complete prior information to their patients. Thirty-six-point three percent of GPs reported combining digital rectal examination with total PSA testing, but in the presence of an abnormality, 60.6% reported that they referred their patients directly to the urologist without ordering other additional investigations (first or second line). Finally, 32.7% of GPs found that the recommendations disseminated were appropriate for their practice. Conclusion: Individual screening for PCa is widely proposed; but there are differences between the practices reported by GPs and official recommendations of learned societies. Our study highlights the need to popularize the recommendations of learned societies to GPs.