Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jun 19.
doi: 10.1007/s13187-025-02665-4. Online ahead of print.

Prostate Cancer Screening: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices by Medical Doctors in Portugal

Affiliations

Prostate Cancer Screening: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices by Medical Doctors in Portugal

Raquel Braga et al. J Cancer Educ. .

Abstract

Opportunistic prostate cancer (PCa) screening is common worldwide, with physicians playing an important role in its uptake and consequences. This study explores the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of family doctors and urologists in Portugal regarding PCa screening. A national online survey was conducted between November 2020 and February 2021. Family doctors and urologists were reached by email through their national medical associations, for a total of 596 and 63 participants from each group, respectively. Urologists considered themselves more updated with PCa screening practices than family doctors (93.0% vs. 73.1%; p < 0.001). Family doctors were more likely to consider older age (97.2% vs. 90.9%; p = 0.025) and smoking (80.6% vs. 31.7%; p < 0.001) as risk factors for PCa. Most urologists reported following the European Association of Urology Guidelines for PCa screening (90.9%), while family doctors preferred the National Guidelines (73.9%). A higher proportion of urologists believed early diagnosis is essential for improving PCa prognosis (92.9% vs. 67.9%; p < 0.001). Urologists were more likely to recommend prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for age group-eligible males (always or almost always: 77.2% vs. 20.4%; p < 0.001) and to perform digital rectal examination (never or rarely: 3.5% vs. 96.2%; p < 0.001). Overall, 65.1% of doctors believed that magnetic resonance imaging could improve the diagnosis of PCa in patients with high PSA levels. Family doctors and urologists differed in their knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding PCa screening. The latter are more interventive and believe more in the benefits of PCa screening.

Keywords: Early detection of cancer; Family physicians; Prostate-specific antigen; Prostatic neoplasm; Urologists.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethical Approval: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Instituto de Saúde Pública da Universidade do Porto (Parecer nº CE20168) and by both Medical Associations (Associação Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar and Associação Portuguesa de Urologia). All data collected were anonymous, and no information was requested to identify the participants. All procedures were followed by the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee, along with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Ethical Review Board: The Ethics Committee of the Instituto de Saúde Pública da Universidade do Porto (Parecer nº CE20168) approved the study protocol. Informed Consent: Participants provided written informed consent by agreeing to participate in the online survey. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests.

Similar articles

References

    1. Bray F et al (2024) Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 74(3):229–263. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21834 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cornford P et al (2024) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2024 update. Part I: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 86(2):148–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.03.027 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Zappa M, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, Lujan M, Määttänen L, Lilja H, Denis LJ, Recker F, Paez A, Bangma CH, Carlsson S, Puliti D, Villers A, Rebillard X, Hakama M, Stenman UH, Kujala P, Taari K, Aus G, Huber A, van der Kwast TH, van Schaik RH, de Koning HJ, Moss SM, Auvinen A, ERSPC investigators (2014) The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer – prostate cancer mortality at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet 384(9959):2027–2035. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60525-0 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Grossman DC et al (2018) Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 319(18):1901–1913. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.3710 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hugosson J et al (2019) A 16-yr follow-up of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 76(1):43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.009 - DOI - PubMed - PMC

LinkOut - more resources