Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • BJGP Open Accessibility Statement
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Audio Abstracts
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • BJGP Life
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • Contact
  • SPECIAL ISSUES
    • Artificial Intelligence in Primary Care: call for articles
    • Social Care Integration with Primary Care: call for articles
    • Special issue: Telehealth
    • Special issue: Race and Racism in Primary Care
    • Special issue: COVID-19 and Primary Care
    • Past research calls
    • Top 10 Research Articles of the Year
  • BJGP CONFERENCE →
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
BJGP Open
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow BJGP Open on Instagram
  • Visit bjgp open on Bluesky
  • Blog
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
BJGP Open

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • BJGP Open Accessibility Statement
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Audio Abstracts
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • BJGP Life
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • Contact
  • SPECIAL ISSUES
    • Artificial Intelligence in Primary Care: call for articles
    • Social Care Integration with Primary Care: call for articles
    • Special issue: Telehealth
    • Special issue: Race and Racism in Primary Care
    • Special issue: COVID-19 and Primary Care
    • Past research calls
    • Top 10 Research Articles of the Year
  • BJGP CONFERENCE →
Research

A genetic risk assessment for prostate cancer influences patients’ risk perception and use of repeat PSA testing: a cross-sectional study in Danish general practice

Jacob Fredsøe, Pia Kirkegaard, Adrian Edwards, Peter Vedsted, Karina Dalsgaard Sørensen and Flemming Bro
BJGP Open 2020; 4 (2): bjgpopen20X101039. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgpopen20X101039
Jacob Fredsøe
1 Department of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
2 Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jacob Fredsøe
  • For correspondence: jcf{at}clin.au.dk
Pia Kirkegaard
3 Department of Public Health Programs, Randers Regional Hospital, Randers, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Adrian Edwards
4 Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Vedsted
5 Department of Public Health, Research Centre for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karina Dalsgaard Sørensen
1 Department of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
2 Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Flemming Bro
6 Department of Public Health, Research Unit for General Practice Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1. Flow chart of inclusion and exclusion criteria. PSA = prostate specific antigen.
  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2. Self-reported outcome of tests for PC. In total, 555 patients (482 with a normal risk, 73 with a high risk) were asked if they had received a genetic test (A). Patients who were aware of the genetic test (262 normal risk and 44 high risk) were next asked about the result of the test (B). Out of all questionnaire responders, patients reported if their PSA levels were normal, elevated, or they did not know (or did not answer) (C). Answers were separated into bins, based on PSA level at inclusion. Fisher’s exact test was used to test for difference in distribution. NS = not significant. PC = prostate cancer. PSA = prostate specific antigen. ***P<0.001.
  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3. Self-reported perceived risk of getting a PC diagnosis, dying of PC, or intention of a repeat PSA test. Patients were asked about their perceived risk of getting PC and/or dying from PC on a scale of 1–5, as well as their intent to have a repeat PSA test within 2 years on a scale of 1–4. The perceived risks and intention were plotted against awareness of having the genetic test (A-C), or the actual test result of measured genetic risk (D-F). Fisher’s exact test was used to test for difference in distribution. PC = prostate cancer. PSA = prostate specific antigen. NS = not significant. ***P<0.001.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1. Summary of patient questionnaire used in this study. The full questionnaire participants received is available on request.
    Question labelTextResponse
    q01Did you have a PSA test?1 = yes, 0 = no
    q02Why did you take the PSA test? 
    q02_1 I have / had urinary problems 
    q02_2 I got the test, as I still was at the doctor in connection with another health problem 
    q02_3 I got it taken in conjunction with a regular health check 
    q02_4 I got the test because I was worried that I have PC 
    q02_5 I got it taken to be sure that I do not have PC 
    q02_6 I had not even considered getting test before my doctor recommended me 
    q02_7 My family has advised me to take the test 
    q02_8 My friends / acquaintances have advised me to take the test 
    q02_9 I have friends / acquaintances who have had PC and are living with it today 
    q02_10 I have friends / acquaintances who have died of PC 
    q02_11 I have had PC 
    q02_12 I have had another type of cancer 
    q02_13 I have had an elevated PSA level 
    q02_14 Other reason. Please specify 
    q03How were the results of the PSA test?1 = normal, 2 = increased, 9 = don't know
    q04How do you assess your risk of getting PC, compared with other men your age?1 = much lower, 2 = lower, 3 = the same, 4 = higher, 5 = much higher
    q05How do you assess your risk of dying from PC compared with other men your age?1 = much lower, 2 = lower, 3 = the same, 4 = higher, 5 = much higher
    q06Although my PSA level is normal now, I am determined to ask my doctor for a new PSA test over the next 2 years1 = totally disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = totally agree, 9 = don't know
    q07How do you think your health is overall?1 = bad, 2 = less good, 3 = good, 4 = very good, 5 = excellent
    q08Have you had taken a genetic test?1 = yes, 0 = no
    q09How was the result of your genetic testing?1 = normal, 2 = increased, 9 = don't know
    • PC = prostate cancer. PSA = prostate specific antigen.

    • View popup
    Table 2. Summary of patient characteristics (N = 555)
    Characteristicsn (%) a
    Median a ge at inclusion, years ( IQR ) 63.4 (56.7 to 68.9)
    Median PSA at inclusion ( IQR ) 1.1 (0.7 to 2.0)
    PSA levels
    <1 ng/ml213 (38.4)
    ≥1 ng/ml342 (61.6)
    Unknown0 (0.0)
    Lifetime PC risk
    Average risk482 (86.8)
    High risk73 (13.2)
    Unknown0 (0)
    General wellbeing (scale 1–5), mean (SD)3.39 (0.79)
    Reason to get PSA test b
    Urinary problems185 (33.3)
    Saw the doctor for another health problem140 (25.2)
    As part of a regular health check193 (34.8)
    Worried about or ruling out having PC351 (63.2)
    Not intended before doctor recommendation102 (18.4)
    Family or friends or acquaintances advise142 (25.6)
    Friends or acquaintances living with or died from PC245 (44.1)
    Having another type of cancer7 (1.3)
    Previous elevated PSA level8 (1.4)
    Other reasons60 (10.8)
    • aUnless stated otherwise. bParticipants able to select multiple reasons. IQR = interquartile range. PC = prostate cancer. PSA = prostate-specific antigen. SD = standard deviation.

    • View popup
    Table 3. Cox regression analysis for repeat PSA test (N = 555, 160 with repeat PSA test). Uni- and multi-variate Cox regression, using genetic risk score, awareness of having a genetic test, PSA level at inclusion, perceived risk of PC, perceived risk of dying from PC, and intention for a repeat PSA were investigated as potential explanatory variables for actually having a repeat PSA test within 2 years.
    UnivariateMultivariate
    Variable Characteristics HR (95% CI) P value C-index a HR (95% CI) P value
    Genetic riskNormal versus high8.11(5.83 to 11.29) < 0.001 0.665.99(4.09 to 8.79) < 0.001
    Awareness of having a genetic testNo versus yes1.23(0.90 to 1.69)0.1930.531.32(0.95 to 1.83)0.099
    PSA at inclusionContinuous1.24(1.05 to 1.46) 0.0097 0.561.16(0.98 to 1.38)0.083
    Perceived risk for PC1–52.13(1.68 to 2.71) < 0.001 0.621.2(0.83 to 1.74)0.331
    Perceived risk for dying of PC1–51.77(1.38 to 2.28) < 0.001 0.591.11(0.79 to 1.57)0.553
    Intention for repeat PSA test1–41.35(1.18 to 1.54) < 0.001 0.621.2(1.05 to 1.37) 0.007
    • aC-index, Harrell’s concordance index. HR = hazard ratio. PC = prostate cancer. PSA = prostate specific antigen.

Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

BJGP Open
Vol. 4, Issue 2
June 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Email Article

Thank you for recommending BJGP Open.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A genetic risk assessment for prostate cancer influences patients’ risk perception and use of repeat PSA testing: a cross-sectional study in Danish general practice
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from BJGP Open
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from BJGP Open.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
A genetic risk assessment for prostate cancer influences patients’ risk perception and use of repeat PSA testing: a cross-sectional study in Danish general practice
Jacob Fredsøe, Pia Kirkegaard, Adrian Edwards, Peter Vedsted, Karina Dalsgaard Sørensen, Flemming Bro
BJGP Open 2020; 4 (2): bjgpopen20X101039. DOI: 10.3399/bjgpopen20X101039

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
A genetic risk assessment for prostate cancer influences patients’ risk perception and use of repeat PSA testing: a cross-sectional study in Danish general practice
Jacob Fredsøe, Pia Kirkegaard, Adrian Edwards, Peter Vedsted, Karina Dalsgaard Sørensen, Flemming Bro
BJGP Open 2020; 4 (2): bjgpopen20X101039. DOI: 10.3399/bjgpopen20X101039
del.icio.us logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo Bluesky logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • How this fits in
    • Introduction
    • Method
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • prostate-specific antigen
  • prostatic neoplasms
  • risk assessment
  • general practice
  • surveys and questionnaires
  • genetic testing

More in this TOC Section

  • Depictions of the GP crisis: thematic analysis of UK newspapers pre-general election
  • Continuing professional development on planetary health for African family physicians: descriptive survey
  • What does "housebound" mean? Mixed methods study to develop a consensus definition
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Latest articles
  • Authors & reviewers
  • Accessibility statement

RCGP

  • British Journal of General Practice
  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP Open
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP Open: research
  • Writing for BJGP Open: practice & policy
  • BJGP Open editorial process & policies
  • BJGP Open ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP Open

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Open access licence

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Open Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: bjgpopen@rcgp.org.uk

BJGP Open is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners

© 2025 BJGP Open

Online ISSN: 2398-3795