Screening and clinical management of prostate cancer: A cross-national comparison

Saskia M.A.B. Peters, Albert J. Jovell, Anna García-Altes, Mateu Serra-Prat

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)


Objectives: The objectives of the study were to identify the current standards of clinical practice regarding prostate cancer screening in western Europe, Canada, and the United States, and to highlight major characteristics of current prostate cancer screening programs or patterns of practice. Methods: We performed a semi-structured interview by means of a self-administered questionnaire sent by fax to 26 institutes pertaining to the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Results: None of the countries surveyed had a formal national screening policy. Despite that, all the countries answering the questionnaire had discretionary, public-financed screening practices. Moreover, some scientific and professional organizations recommended population screening for prostate cancer, and few of the surveyed countries offered it as experimental practice within a randomized controlled trial. Survey results showed variation regarding screening policies, in particular test of choice, age cut-off points, and treatment prescribed for positive test results. Conclusions: Despite the lack of conclusive evidence on the benefits of prostate cancer screening, the availability of simple and easy-to-administer tests has lead to an enormous variation on screening policies around the world. Practice variations also affect prostate cancer therapy.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)215-221
JournalInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 5 Jul 2001


  • Cross-national comparison analysis
  • Health policy analysis
  • Prostate cancer
  • Prostate cancer screening
  • Prostate cancer treatment


Dive into the research topics of 'Screening and clinical management of prostate cancer: A cross-national comparison'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this