Prostate Cancer Screening Uptake in Transgender Females.

Abstract

Transgender females (TF) can experience aggressive forms of prostate cancer, but their uptake of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer is not well-known. Although national guidelines recommend PSA screening based on age, they do not specify recommendations based on gender identity. We evaluate and compare factors associated with recent PSA screening between cisgender men (CM) and TF using Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey data. BRFSS 2018-2020 data was queried to identify CM and TF older than 40 who provided responses to BRFSS questions asking time since last PSA test and whether a provider discussed PSA advantages and disadvantages. Rates of recent screening, defined as receiving a PSA test in the last 2 years with no current or past history of prostate cancer, were calculated for CM and TF. Ages were grouped as younger than 55, 55-69, and 70 years and older based on national PSA screening guidelines, and a 1:4 age-matched cohort between CM and TF was created. Weighted multivariable logistic regressions to measure effects of gender identity, sociodemographic variables, and healthcare access on the odds of recent screening and were calculated and presented as odds ratios (ORs) [95% confidence intervals]. The age-matched cohort had 1,252 CM and 313 TF; TF had a lower overall screening rate than CM (24% vs. 42.3%). TF and CM had similar rates of primary care visits within the last year (85% vs. 86%), but TF were less likely to report that a PSA screen was recommended to them by a provider (33% vs. 49%, p<0.001). Even among all patients with this PSA screening recommendation, fewer TF were recently screened than CM (63% vs. 78%, p = 0.002). In a multivariable regression model, TF had lower odds of recent screening (OR = 0.5 [0.32-0.76], p<0.001) when compared to CM. Discussion of PSA advantages with a provider had higher odds (OR = 15 [10.6-21.5], p<0.001) while discussion of PSA disadvantages was not significantly associated with screening (OR = 0.84 [0.6-1.2], p = 0.3). A college education had higher odds of recent screening (OR = 2.66 [1.2-6.3], p = 0.02) than no high school education. In a multivariable regression model of TF patients, TF aged 70 years and older had higher odds of recent screening (OR = 2.8 [1.1-7.1], p = 0.002) than TF aged 55-69, with screening rates of 14%, 21% and 60% for the under 55, 55-69, and 70+ age groups, respectively. Similarly, to the overall cohort, provider-led discussion of PSA advantages had the strongest association with recent screening (OR = 15.4 [6.15-43.1], p < 0.001), followed by being college educated (OR = 5.7 [1.5-24.9], p = 0.01). TF patients were screened with PSA at a lower rate than CM. Discussing PSA screening benefits with a provider had the largest effect on recent screening among TF patients, highlighting the provider's role in screening uptake. Future studies should continue to evaluate the effects of provider perceptions and barriers to healthcare access on PSA screening in TF.