PSA-based Prostate Cancer Screening Research Articles

A Cost-Benefit Comparison of Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Conventional Prostate Cancer Screening

Purpose: : This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bp MRI) for prostate cancer screening to prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening.Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data from 602 men who had PSA-based prostate cancer screening between July 2014 and April 2017 and 621 men who underwent bp MRI-based prostate cancer screening between May 2017 and December 2020. Of them, 467 men with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System scores of 3 or higher underwent magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion transrectal biopsy and random transrectal prostate biopsy. The remaining 154 patients underwent random prostate biopsies only. Patient demographics, digital rectal examination, staging, PSA level, PSA density, bp MRI findings associated with prostate cancer detection on biopsy, admission rate for complications after prostate biopsy, and associated medical costs were analyzed.Results: Prebiopsy demographics were comparable. The MRI-based screening had a higher prostate cancer detection rate (62.7%) than conventional screening (45.1%). Biparametric MRI was more sensitive for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (40.6% vs. 23.5%). In 154 men who lacked a targetable prostate lesion, 47 and 14 patients (9.1%) had insignificant and significant prostate cancer, respectively. None of the patients had more than Gleason 8 (4+4). MRI-based screening costs more than conventional screening. However, the cost of detecting csPCa can be reduced by 49.4% (United States dollar [USD] 14,883.5 vs. USD 7,355.0).Conclusions: MRI-based screening is sensitive for csPCa and is cost-effective. It can also reduce unnecessary biopsies to detect insignificant prostate cancer

Göteborg2 study-early PSA-based prostate cancer screening prior to the age of 55years

Göteborg2 study-early PSA-based prostate cancer screening prior to the age of 55years

Clinician interest in clinical decision support for PSA-based prostate cancer screening.

To evaluate the interest of primary care clinicians in utilizing CDS for PSA screening. Evidence suggests that electronic clinical decision support (CDS) may decrease low-value prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. However, physician attitudes towards CDS for PSA screening are largely unknown. A survey was sent to 201 primary care clinicians, including both physicians and Advanced Practice Providers (APP), within a large academic health system. Eligible clinicians cared for male patients aged 40 to 80 years and ordered ≥5 PSA tests in the past year. Respondents were stratified into 3 groups, appropriate screeners, low-value screeners, or rare-screeners, based on responses to survey questions assessing PSA screening practices. The degree of interest in electronic CDS was determined via a composite Likert score comprising relevant survey items. Survey response rate was 29% (59/201) consisting of 85% MD/DO and 15% APP respondents. All clinicians surveyed were interested in CDS (P < 0.001) without significant difference between screener groups. Clinicians agreed most uniformly that CDS be evidence-based. Clinicians disagreed on whether CDS would decrease professional discretion over patient decisions. Primary care clinicians are interested in CDS for PSA screening regardless of their current screening practices. Prioritizing CDS features that clinicians value, such as ensuring CDS recommendations are evidence-based, may increase the likelihood of successful implementation, whereas perceived threat to autonomy may be a hinderance to utilization.

Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) testing practices in an academic healthcare organization

Background: It is estimated that one out of nine men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in their lives. However, there is so much debate about the impact of guidelines in prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening for early detection of prostate cancer. Although some studies have examined variation in PSA-based screening for prostate cancer, they have not considered the impact that the type of health insurance and clinician specialty may have in PSA-screening practices. Methods: Retrospective medical chart review of 500 male patients (40–69 years old). ANOVAS and logistic regression tested for significant differences in the variables of interest. Results: The majority (83%) of patients did not receive any type of PSA-testing during the study period. Patients of older age and those having private insurance were more likely to have a PSA-test. Of those patients who had PSA testing (n = 83), half received it for prostate cancer screening. The majority of the PSA-tests performed (n = 214) were ordered by urologists, received by White patients, and covered by private insurance. Conclusions: In this study, type of health insurance and age were associated with receipt of a PSA test, as opposed to race. Considering that male patients usually go to the urologists only when they have prostate symptoms, primary care clinicians may benefit from continued education on counseling patients, especially those who may be at elevated risk, regarding the importance of prostate health and PSA exams in general.

Outcomes of Screening for Prostate Cancer Among Men Who Use Statins

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer has resulted in a slight reduction in prostate cancer mortality but also a concomitant overdiagnosis of low-risk tumors. Prostate-specific antigen levels are affected by use of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs, but the association of statin use with PSA screening performance is unknown. To investigate whether statin use was associated with outcomes of a randomized PSA-based prostate cancer screening intervention. This post hoc subgroup analysis of a cohort from a population-based randomized clinical trial used data from the population-based Finnish Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening, which randomized men to PSA screening or routine care from March 1, 1996, to December 31, 1999, with follow-up continuing until December 31, 2015. The population included all men aged 55 to 67 years at baseline and residing in the Tampere or Helsinki districts of Finland. Information on statin purchases from 1996 to 2009 was obtained from a national prescription registry. Eligible men were identified from the population registry of Finland. Prevalent prostate cancer cases at baseline were excluded. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2019 to March 31, 2021. Three invitations for PSA screening at 4-year intervals from 1996 to 2007 vs routine care. Risk for prostate cancer overall, high-risk disease, and prostate cancer mortality in the screening group vs the control group as an intention-to-treat analysis. The analysis was stratified by statin use. The study comprised 78 606 men (median age, 59 years [range, 55-67 years]) with statin purchase data available. Although PSA screening was associated with increased prostate cancer incidence among statin nonusers (screening vs control, 11.2 vs 8.6 per 1000 person-years); rate ratio [RR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.24-1.38), no similar increase in incidence was observed among statin users (6.9 vs 5.9 per 1000 person-years; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.95-1.10; P < .001 for interaction). Incidence of low-risk (Gleason score 6) and localized tumors was lower among statin users, whereas detection of tumors with a Gleason score of 8 to 10 was similar. Screening was associated with a lower incidence of metastatic tumors regardless of statin use. In this post hoc subgroup analysis of a cohort from a population-based randomized clinical trial, PSA screening among statin users was associated with a decreased incidence of advanced prostate cancer that was similar among statin nonusers, but with less increase in detection of low-grade localized tumors in statin users than in nonusers. These findings suggest that statin use does not materially compromise benefits of PSA-based screening.

Assessment of prostate-specific antigen screening: an evidence-based report by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care.

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing increases prostate cancer diagnoses and reduces long-term disease-specific mortality, but also results in overdiagnoses and treatment-related harms. To systematically assess the benefits and harms of population-based PSA screening and the potential net benefit to inform health policy decision-makers in Germany. We performed a protocol-guided comprehensive literature search according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. All steps were performed by one or two investigators; any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. To allow subgroup analyses for identifying the optimal screening parameters, the eight national trials conducted under the umbrella of the European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) were included as individual trials. We included a total 11 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 416 000 study participants. For all-cause mortality, we found neither benefit nor harm. PSA screening was associated with a reduced risk of both prostate cancer mortality and the development of metastases. For the outcomes of health-related quality of life, adverse effects and the consequences of false-negative screening results there was no difference; however, this was due to the lack of eligible RCT data. Finally, PSA screening was associated with large numbers of overdiagnoses with adverse downstream consequences of unnecessary treatment (e.g. incontinence, erectile dysfunction) and large numbers of false-positive PSA tests leading to biopsies associated with a small but not negligible risk of complications. Limitations of this assessment include the clinical heterogeneity and methodological limitations of the underlying studies. The benefits of PSA-based prostate cancer screening do not outweigh its harms. We failed to identify eligible screening studies of newer biomarkers, PSA derivatives or modern imaging modalities, which may alter the balance of benefit to harm. In the present study, we reviewed the evidence on the PSA blood test to screen men without symptoms for prostate cancer. We found that the small benefits experienced by some men do not outweigh the harms to many more men.

PUK9 Economic Evaluation of Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening for Prostate Cancer in China

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test followed by a biopsy can be used to detect prostate cancers. Both NCCN and Chinese guidelines recommend beginning PSA screening for men aged 50 or aged 45 with a family history because those populations were at a higher risk of developing prostate cancer. This study thus aimed to conduct an economic evaluation by analyzing the cost-effectiveness of PSA-based prostate cancer screening in China.

Prostate Cancer Screening Using Prostate-Specific Antigen Tests in a High-Risk Population in China: A Cost-Utility Analysis

Both National Comprehensive Cancer Network and Chinese guidelines recommend beginning prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for men aged 50 years or 45 years with a family history because they were at a higher risk of developing prostate cancer. Several model-based economic evaluations of PSA screening studies have been conducted, but with little evidence from China. The aim of this study was to conduct an economic evaluation of the cost-utility of PSA-based prostate cancer screening in Chinese men. We developed a decision-tree and Markov model in Excel (Microsoft Corp, Redmond, Washington) to compare 2 strategies that can be used to detect prostate cancer: PSA-based screening followed by a biopsy, and non-PSA screening. We assumed that the patients would repeat screening in subsequent years if their first-year PSA value was higher than 4.0 ng/mL. The model adopted health care system perspective and lifetime horizon. Screening efficacy, cost, utility, and long-term survival of prostate cancer were retrieved from published literature and physician surveys. Both quality-adjusted life year and costs were discounted at an annual rate of 3.5%. Uncertainty was assessed by 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Our model also calculated the risk-to-benefit ratio as the ratio of overdiagnosis (biopsy without diagnosed) to prostate cancer-related deaths prevented in different age groups. The results suggested that PSA-based screening was cost-effective compared with no PSA screening, with an incremental cost-utility ratio of ¥11,381 ($1821/€1480) per quality-adjusted life year. This value was less than the threshold of 1-time gross domestic product per capita in China (ie, ¥70,892 [$11,343/€9216]). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. The risk-to-benefit ratios of the 50 to 65 years and the 65 to 80 years age groups were 1.3 and 2.8, respectively. PSA-based prostate cancer screening appears to be cost-effective in some high-risk Chinese men. PSA screening (PSA testing followed by magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy if positive) can be recommended for Chinese men aged 50 to 65 years because this approach had the lowest risk-to-benefit ratio. The approach should be further adapted based on future updated data. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2022; 83:XXX-XXX)© 2022 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc.

Changing Provider PSA Screening Behavior Using Best Practice Advisories: Interventional Study in a Multispecialty Group Practice.

Most guidelines recommend against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men ≥ 70 years of age. Adherence to these guidelines is variable. To determine whether the use of a "Best Practice Advisory" (BPA) intervention within the electronic medical record (EMR) system can alter the rate of PSA screening in men ≥ 70 years of age. This is an interventional study spanning the years 2013 through 2017, in men ≥ 70 years of age in Kaiser Permanente Northern California with no prior history of prostate cancer. The BPA intervention was activated in the EMR system on October 15, 2015, with no prior notice or education. Integrated healthcare system including all Kaiser Permanente Northern California facilities. A population-based sample that included all male members ≥ 70 years of age without a history of prostate cancer. The main outcome was the rate of PSA testing in men ≥ 70 years of age. We compared the rates of PSA testing between the pre-BPA period (January 1, 2013-October 14, 2015) and the post-BPA period (October 15, 2015-December 31, 2017). An interrupted time series analysis of PSA ordering rates was performed. Following the 2015 BPA intervention, screening rates substantially declined from 36.0 per 100 person-years to 14.9 per 100 person-years (rate ratio = 0.415; 95% CI: 0.410-0.419). The effect of the BPA was comparable among all patient races and ordering provider specialties. The interrupted time series analysis showed a rapid, large, and sustained drop in the rate of PSA ordering, and much less temporal variation in test ordering after activation of the BPA. Following activation of a BPA within the EMR, the rates of inappropriate PSA testing significantly declined by 58.5% in men ≥ 70 years of age and temporal variation was reduced.

Prostate cancer mortality projections reach a new high: With prostate cancer deaths projected to rise to their highest level in 20 years, some experts worry that changes to screening guidelines made in 2012 could be a factor.

Prostate cancer mortality projections reach a new high: With prostate cancer deaths projected to rise to their highest level in 20 years, some experts worry that changes to screening guidelines made in 2012 could be a factor.

A discussion on controversies and ethical dilemmas in prostate cancer screening

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the the most common cancers in men. A blood test called prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has a potential to pick up this cancer very early...

Impact of the evolving United States Preventative Services Task Force policy statements on incidence and distribution of prostate cancer over 15 years in a statewide cancer registry.

BackgroundThe United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) guideline on Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening evolved both in 2008 (Grade I for men < 75 years and Grade D for men > 75 years) and in 2012 (Grade D for all ages).Materials and methodsA statewide cancer registry operated by the Pennsylvania Department of Health was accessed to analyze over a 15-year period prostate cancer rates across different categories including age, stage, and geographic distribution.ResultsLocal prostate cancer rates decreased significantly when comparing before and after USPSTF's guideline changes: 2002–2008 vs. 2009–2012 vs. 2013–2016 (p < 0.005). Conversely, the distant cancer rates increased significantly in Caucasian men (but not in African American men) (p = 0.0078). In age group analysis, distant cancer rates increased significantly in all age ranges, most notably in younger men (50–59 years). No observed difference in the trend of distant cancer rates when considering rural versus urban counties.ConclusionsIncident prostate cancer cases diagnosed in Pennsylvania have decreased over the past 15 years with a recent rise in distant carcinomas potentially attributable to the USPSTF recommendations against PSA-based screening. Although the USPSTF revised their PSA-based prostate cancer screening guideline in 2018 (Grade C for men 55–69 years and Grade D for men > 70 years), the implications of the aforementioned observations on mortality outcomes merit further follow-up.

Long-term health-related quality of life among men with prostate cancer in the Finnish randomized study of screening for prostate cancer.

BackgroundThe long‐term health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) impacts of PCa screening have not been adequately evaluated. We aimed to compare the generic and disease‐specific health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) among men with prostate cancer in the screening arm with the control arm of the PSA‐based prostate cancer screening trial in up to 15 years of follow‐up.Materials and methodsThis study was conducted within population‐based Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (FinRSPC). During 1996‐1999 80,458 men were randomized to the serum prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) screening arm (SA, N = 32 000) and the control arm (CA, N = 48 458). Men in the screening arm were screened at 4‐year intervals until 2007. HRQOL questionnaires were delivered to newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients in the screening and control arm 1996‐2006 (N = 5128) at the time of diagnosis (baseline), at 3‐month, 12‐month and 5, 10, and 15‐year follow‐up. Validated UCLA Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA‐PCI) and RAND 36‐Item Health Survey were used for HRQOL assessment. The data were analyzed with a random effects model for repeated measures.ResultsAt baseline, men with prostate cancer in the screening arm reported better Sexual Function, as well as less Sexual and Urinary Bother. Long‐term follow‐up revealed slightly higher HRQOL scores in the screening arm in prostate cancer specific measures at 10‐year post diagnosis, but the differences were statistically significant only in Urinary Bother (UCLA‐PCI score 77.9; 95% CI 75.2 to 80.5 vs. 70.9; 95% CI 66.8 to 74.9 P = .005). The generic HRQOL scores were comparable between the trial arms. The overall differences in disease‐specific or generic HRQOL scores by trial arm did not vary during the follow‐up.ConclusionNo major differences were observed in HRQOL in men with prostate cancer between the prostate cancer screening and control arms during five to 15‐year follow‐up.

Shared decision making and prostate-specific antigen based prostate cancer screening following the 2018 update of USPSTF screening guideline.

Previous study reported shared decision making was underused in PSA-based prostate cancer screening. In mid-2018, the US Preventive Service Task Force recommended shared decision making (SDM) before PSA-based prostate cancer screening among men aged 55-69 year while remained against PSA testing in men aged 70 or older. The objective of this study is to examine recent changes in SDM and prostate cancer screening following recent USPSTF recommendations. A retrospective cross-sectional study among men aged 50 years or older were conducted using 2015 and 2018 National Health Interview Survey data (n = 10,926). Outcomes included self-reported PSA testing for prostate cancer screening last year, and if yes, whether respondent ever had a discussion with the healthcare provider about its advantages and disadvantages. Analyses were stratified by respondent's age (50-54 vs. 55-69 vs. 70+). Routine PSA screening rates remained stable from 34.3% in 2015 to 35.4% in first half of 2018, and 36.0% in second half of 2018 (p trend = 0.57). A similar pattern was found in men ≥70 years (p trend = 0.98). Receipt of SDM increased in men aged ≥50 years from 30.5% in 2015 to 33.6% in first half of 2018, and 36.7% in second half of 2018 (p trend = 0.002). The increase was most prominent in men aged 55 to 69 years (31.6, 36.9, and 40.2% in 2015, first half of 2018 and second half of 2018 respectively; p trend = 0.001). Between 2015 and 2018, there was no significant increase in the PSA-based prostate cancer screening. However, a significant increasing trend in SDM was observed, especially in men aged 55-69 years.

Re: Lifetime Benefits and Harms of PSA-Based Risk Screening for Prostate Cancer.

Re: Lifetime Benefits and Harms of PSA-Based Risk Screening for Prostate Cancer.

Changes in Prostate Cancer Presentation Following the 2012 USPSTF Screening Statement: Observational Study in a Multispecialty Group Practice.

In 2012, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men of all ages. Following this change, screening declined yet the complete impact on clinical presentation is not well defined in the screen-eligible population. To determine if the rates of PSA screening, prostate biopsy, incident prostate cancer detection, and stage IV at presentation in screen-eligible men in Kaiser Permanente Northern California changed following the 2012 USPSTF Prostate Cancer Screening recommendations. Retrospective study spanning the years 2010 to 2015, in screen-eligible Kaiser Permanente Northern California members (African American men ages 45-69 and all other men ages 50-69) with no prior history of prostate cancer. Participants All screen-eligible, male members during 2010 (n = 403,931) to 2015 (n = 483,286) without a history of prostate cancer within all Kaiser Permanente Northern California facilities. Annual rates of PSA testing, prostate biopsy, incident prostate cancer detection, and stage IV cancer at presentation were compared between the pre-guideline period, 2010 and 2011, and the post-guideline period, 2014 and 2015, in men under the age of 70. Following the 2012 USPSTF guideline change, screening rates declined 23.4% (95% CI 23.0-23.8%), biopsy rates declined 64.3% (95% CI 62.9-65.6%), and incident prostate cancer detection rates declined 53.5% (95% CI 50.1-56.7%) resulting in 1871 fewer incident cancers detected, and metastatic cancer rates increased 36.9% (95% CI 9.5-71.0%) resulting in 75 more stage IV cancers detected. Less screening resulted in a large decrease in cancer detection, some of which may be beneficial as many cancers may be indolent, yet this decrease occurred at the expense of an increase in metastatic cancer rates. For every 25 fewer cancers detected, one metastatic cancer was diagnosed. This information may be valuable in the shared decision-making process around prostate cancer screening.

Correction to: Unintended consequences of decreased PSA-based prostate cancer screening.

In the original publication, part of funding information was missed.

PSAscreening and molecular markers

Prostate cancer (PCA) is the most common type of cancer in men. The significant increase in incidence is most likely caused by the overdiagnosis of prostate cancer by widespread prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. This article reviews the three largest randomized trials of PSA-based prostate cancer screening and the benefits and disadvantages of general PSA screening. It gives an overview about the strategies to avoid the harms from overdetection and overtreatment without missing clinically relevant tumors. This review article is based on aliterature search in the PubMed database on PSA-based screening, molecular serum markers and risk-adapted PSA screening. In contrast to the CAP and PLCO trial, the ERSPC study reports areduced relative and absolute mortality risk. Furthermore, the use of the PSA was associated with significantly lower risk of metastatic disease. In order to avoid unnecessary biopsy and overtreatment including treatment of insignificant prostate cancer, anumber of tests have been proposed to improve the specificity of the PSA screening including the PHI, the 4Kscore and the risk-adapted PSA screening. The assessment of a baseline PSA level in the fifth decade allows subsequent risk-adapted PSA screening intervals. This concept is currently evaluated by the largest prospective multicenter trial, the PROBASE-trial. Neither acomplete rejection of aPSA-based screening nor ageneral PSA testing is afinal solution to this dilemma. Arisk-adapted PSA screening according to abaseline PSA as well as serum markers may reduce unnecessary diagnostic and therapeutic interventions and its attendant morbidities without adecrease in sensitivity.

Changing physician PSA screening behavior in men 70 years of age and older by use of the electronic medical record.

85 Background: Since 2013, both the United States Preventive Services Task Force and the Kaiser Permanente National Prostate Cancer Guidelines have recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men ≥70 years of age. Adherence to these guidelines has been variable. A “Best Practice Alert” (BPA) was activated in the electronic medical record (EMR) system in October 2015 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC). This alerted physicians, in real time, if they attempted to order a PSA test in a man ≥70 years of age with no history of prostate cancer. No additional physician training or education was used. The objective of the present study was to determine the impact of this BPA on the frequency of inappropriate PSA testing. Methods: This was a retrospective study spanning the years 2013 to 2017, in men ≥70 years of age in KPNC with no prior history of prostate cancer. We compared the annual rates of PSA testing between the pre-BPA period, 2013 and 2014; and the post-BPA period , 2016 and 2017 (the post-BPA period began 3 months after the BPA was instituted). The primary outcome was the annual rate of PSA testing. The percent change between the two time periods, the rate ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Results: The annual number of eligible men (men ≥70 years of age and no history of prostate cancer) and annual number of these men undergoing PSA testing are shown in the Table. Annual screening rates declined from 34.3% in the pre-BPA era to 13.5% in the post BPA era. The rate ratio was 0.394 (95% CI, 0.390-0.398). Conclusions: Following the activation of a simple and inexpensive BPA within the EMR, the rate of inappropriate PSA testing decreased 61% in men ≥70 years of age. This change was durable over the study period, demonstrating that well-conceived, straightforward interventions can have a marked effect on physician behavior. [Table: see text]

Reducing overuse of PSA screening in primary care practices.

37 Background: The United States Preventive Services Task Force and the American Urological Association both recommend against routine PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older and, for men younger than 70, recommend shared-decision making to discuss the potential benefits and harms of screening before a PSA is ordered. The HIT-OVERUSE study was a 2 year group randomized study from August 2016 thru July 2018 to test a practice-based intervention to reduce overuse in primary care practices, including avoidance of routine PSA screening without shared decision-making. The purpose of this report is present the impact of this intervention on PSA screening. Methods: Twenty one primary care practices in 19 states volunteered to participate in the study. Prior to randomization, all providers received academic detailing on prostate cancer screening recommendations. Eleven practices randomized to the intervention group then received quarterly performance reports, hosted site visits for participatory planning and sent two practice representatives to a one day meeting to share ‘best practices’. The ten control practices only received performance reports. Changes in PSA testing in the past year (excluding patients with prostate cancer) were compared in control and intervention practices. Results: At the patient level, there was a significantly larger unadjusted reduction in PSA screening in men ages 40 to 69 in the past year between intervention practices (28.6 % to 19.0%) and control practices (16.5% to 12.7%) (p&lt;0.0001). There was also a significantly larger unadjusted reduction in PSA screening in men ages 70 and older in the past year between intervention practices (25.7% to 14.7%) and control practices (21.9% to 15.6%) (p&lt;0.0001). Adjusted changes will also be presented. Conclusions: A practice-based intervention to reduce routine PSA-screening performed without shared decision-making resulted in a greater reduction in PSA screening compared to provision of academic detailing alone. Further research could elucidate whether this type of intervention results in increased shared decision-making conversations with patients.