Article Sidebar
Published:
Aug 1, 2017Article Details
Copyright remains in the Author’s name. The work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - Noncommercial Works License. Authors are required to complete and sign an Author Agreement form that outlines Author and Publisher rights and terms of publication. The Agreement form should be uploaded along with other submissions files and any submission will be considered incomplete without it [forthcoming].
Material submitted for publication in the SAMJ is accepted provided it has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. Please inform the editorial team if the main findings of your paper have been presented at a conference and published in abstract form, to avoid copyright infringement. The SAMJ does not hold itself responsible for statements made by the authors.
Previously published images
If an image/figure has been previously published, permission to reproduce or alter it must be obtained by the authors from the original publisher and the figure legend must give full credit to the original source. This credit should be accompanied by a letter indicating that permission to reproduce the image has been granted to the author/s. This letter should be uploaded as a supplementary file during submission.
Main Article Content
A finger or not? Prostate examinations by non-urologists at a South African academic institution
Abstract
Background. According to the South African (SA) National Cancer Registry 2009, prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed solidorgan cancer in SA men: the incidence increases at ~3% every year, with 1/26 men developing prostate cancer in their lifetime and five men dying every day. Screening for prostate cancer by performing a digital rectal examination (DRE) adds to the sensitivity and specificity of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and is an important component of the assessment for the early detection of prostate cancer.
Objectives. To ascertain whether doctors who are not in the field of urology perform DREs and PSA testing to screen for prostate cancer, where indicated, and to determine the reason, if any, why doctors do not perform prostate examinations.
Methods. Doctors (including specialists and primary care practitioners) who consulted adult male patients in the emergency departments and polyclinics of three academic hospitals were included in the sample and asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire. Doctors with specialist urological training were excluded from the sample. The questionnaire included the following aspects: gender, year of graduation and university, current position, knowledge of PSA screening and DRE, whether these were being performed, and reasons for nonperformance.
Results. The response rate was 303/350 participants. Fifty-nine percent of the respondents were female. The median duration of experience was 5 years. The mean (standard deviation) knowledge score with regard to screening was 56.1% (20). The PSA test alone was most frequently done (35%), followed by asking the patient about urinary tract symptoms (28%). In contrast, DRE of the prostate, alone or combined with a PSA test, was performed less frequently (13.2% and 10.6%, respectively). Some of the most common reasons for not performing a DRE included: ‘It’s more convenient to do a PSA test’; ‘Urologists will examine the prostate anyway’; ‘No privacy in the emergency department/admission ward’; ‘Prostate exam is not relevant to my practice’; ‘There is not enough time’; and ‘The practitioner forgets’. Doctors with >7 years of working experience are the least likely to do a DRE.
Conclusion. Performance rates of DRE and PSA testing by doctors who are not urologists are very low, which may have significant clinical implications. It is recommended that SA prostate cancer screening guidelines are necessary to change practice with regard to this condition.
