
==== Front
BMJ Open
BMJ Open
bmjopen
bmjopen
BMJ Open
2044-6055
BMJ Publishing Group BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR

39153780
10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083562
bmjopen-2023-083562
Original Research
Urology
1738
1506
How a population-based cohort of men estimate lifetime risk of prostate cancer in a survey before entering a prostate cancer screening trial in Sweden?
http://orcid.org/0009-0009-9219-8934
Palmstedt Emmeli 1emmeli_p@hotmail.com

Månsson Marianne 1marianne.mansson@gu.se

Kollberg Karin Stinesen 12karin.stinesen@socwork.gu.se

Carlsson Sigrid 34carlssos@mskcc.org

Hellström Mikael 56mikael.hellstrom@xray.gu.se

Wallström Jonas 56jonas.wallstrom@gu.se

Hugosson Jonas 17jonas.hugosson@surgery.gu.se

Arnsrud Godtman Rebecka 17rebecka.godtman@vgregion.se

1 Department of Urology, University of Gothenburg Institute of Clinical Sciences, Goteborg, Sweden
2 Social Work, University of Gothenburg Faculty of Social Science, Gothenburg, Sweden
3 Department of Surgery and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, New York, USA
4 Translational Medicine, Division of Urological Cancers, Lund University Medical Faculty, Lund, Sweden
5 Department of Radiology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
6 Department of Radiology, University of Gothenburg Institute of Clinical Sciences, Goteborg, Sweden
7 Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

RAG and SC have received lecture fees and travel honorarium from IPSEN, unrelated to this study. SC has also received a honorarium from Astellas and has served on an advisory board for Prostatype Genomics, unrelated to the current study.

EmmeliPalmstedt; emmeli_p@hotmail.com
2024
17 8 2024
14 8 e08356221 12 2023
19 7 2024
Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Abstract

Objectives

Investigating men’s perceived lifetime risk of prostate cancer.

Design

Survey-based study to men invited for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in the GÖTEBORG-2 trial between September 2015 and June 2020.

Setting

38 775 men in the Gothenburg area, Sweden, were invited for PSA-testing and participated in a survey.

Participants

17 980 men participated in PSA-testing, of whom 13 189 completed the survey. In addition, 1264 men answered the survey only.

Interventions

Before having the PSA-test, men answered an electronic survey and estimated their lifetime risk of receiving a prostate cancer diagnosis on a visual analogue scale from 0% to 100%.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was the median lifetime risk estimation, which was compared with Wilcoxon test to an anticipated lifetime risk of 20% (based on GÖTEBORG-1 trial). The secondary outcome was to determine factors associated with risk estimation in a multivariable linear regression model: previous prostate examination, family history, physical exercise, healthy diet, comorbidity, alcohol consumption, smoking, education level, marital status, urinary symptoms and erectile dysfunction.

Results

Among PSA-tested men, the median estimated lifetime risk of prostate cancer was 30% (IQR 19% to 50%), corresponding to a 10 percentage-points higher estimation compared with the anticipated risk (p<0.001). Family history of prostate cancer, moderate to severe urinary symptoms and mild to moderate erectile dysfunction were associated with >5 percentage-points higher risk estimation. Similar results were obtained for non-PSA-tested men.

Conclusions

Most men overestimated their prostate cancer risk which underscores the importance of providing them accurate information about prostate cancer.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN94604465.

prostate
urological tumours
surveys and questionnaires
Swedish state under the agreement between the Swedish government and the county councils N/A http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002794 Cancerfonden N/A Karin and Christer Johansson’s Foundation N/A NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30-CA008748 Biocare N/A ALF-agreement 966044 Regional Cancer Center Western Region Sweden N/A Nordic Cancer Union N/A Swedish Prostate Cancer Association N/A http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002706 AFA Försäkring N/A Konrad and Helfrid Johansson’s Foundation N/A http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004359 Vetenskapsrådet N/A Swedish Cancer Society Swedish Research Council
==== Body
pmcSTRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

A large population.

The response rate is high (73%).

Risk of selection bias since men in this study have chosen to participate in a screening study for prostate cancer.

Introduction

Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) continues to be a highly debated topic around the world. The European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the GÖTEBORG-1 (G1) trials demonstrated a 20%–30% reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality at 16–22 years of follow-up.13 The main harms of screening are overdiagnosis and overtreatment with side-effects that may significantly impact men’s quality of life.246 Given the uncertain balance between benefits and harms, most organisations and guidelines recommend that asymptomatic men participate in shared decision making about PSA-testing.7 8

Being provided adequate information is important for men to make this informed decision. A key component is having a realistic assessment of the lifetime risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer. Yet, research is lacking regarding how men perceive their risk of prostate cancer. Available studies report contrasting findings, some studies report that men estimate their risk of prostate cancer to be low,9 10 whereas others have found that men overestimate their risk.1012

Limited information available on how men participating in a screening study estimate their lifetime risk of receiving a prostate cancer diagnosis. The objective of this study was therefore to investigate how men in the GÖTEBORG-2 trial (G2), a population-based prostate cancer screening trial, estimate their lifetime risk of prostate cancer and whether there are specific factors associated with risk estimation. We hypothesise that men overestimate their lifetime risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer compared with the real average lifetime risk in a screening population.

Methods

The GÖTEBORG-2 trial (G2 trial) was approved by the local Ethics Review Committee at the University of Gothenburg in 2015. A detailed description of the G2 trial has been described previously.13 14 In brief, the study includes approximately 60 000 men living in Gothenburg and surrounding counties in Sweden. Men aged 50–60 years were randomised into two groups, one invited to a PSA+MRI-based screening and one constituting a control group that was neither invited to the screening nor to the survey (2:1 ratio). Invitation for screening took place between September 2015 and June 2020.

A letter of invitation was sent to all men in the screening group together with a brochure containing information about the G2 trial, risks and benefits and general information about prostate cancer including mentioning that ‘prostate cancer is the most common cancer among Swedish men and also the most common cancer-related cause of death’, but it did not contain any numerical risk estimates. The invitation letter also encouraged men to complete a survey prior to having their initial PSA-test. In the invitation, it was clarified that participation in the screening trial and answering the survey was completely voluntary and that the participant could withdraw or cancel their participation in the study at any time (opt-out model).

By using a unique code provided in the invitation documents, the participant could log in and answer the electronic survey online. A paper version of the survey was also available on request. Men were instructed to complete the survey before having the PSA-test and the online survey was closed when a PSA-result was entered into the database, or after 3 months.

The survey started with questions about prior PSA testing, prior prostate examinations and family history of prostate cancer (diagnosis in any family member at any age, not only first-degree relatives) (online supplemental document 1). After that, we asked men to estimate their lifetime risk of prostate cancer: ‘During your lifetime, how high do you estimate that your risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer is?’ Men were asked to estimate their lifetime risk by putting a mark on a visual analogue scale from 0% to 100%, where a number also was displayed while marking (figure 1). Thereafter, followed demographic questions about physical and mental health and background information such as marital status, education, ethnicity, smoking and drinking habits.

Figure 1 The online version of the perceived risk question. The upper figure demonstrates an unanswered question and the lower being answered to a risk of 30%. A translation of the question: ‘During your lifetime, how high do you estimate that your risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer is? Mark on the line’.

All men who completed the survey in the first screening round of the G2 trial were included and constituted the study population. Our main focus was on men participating in the screening trial by having a PSA-test (attenders) (figure 2). Men who completed the survey but who did not have a PSA-test (non-attenders) were analysed separately.

Figure 2 Flowchart of the study population. PSA, prostate-specific antigen.

Patient and public involvement

Patients or the public have not been involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this survey study.

Statistical methods

The primary outcome was men’s estimated lifetime risk of prostate cancer at the time they responded to the survey, before having a PSA-test. The median of the risk estimates was compared with an anticipated lifetime risk of prostate cancer diagnosis in a screening population, which was set to 20% based on the observed cumulative 24 year incidence of prostate cancer in the screening group (unpublished data) of the GÖTEBORG-1 trial.15 Wilcoxon one-sample signed-rank test was used to test whether there was a significant difference between the median of the estimated risk and the anticipated risk. Background characteristics were analysed separately for men attending PSA-testing (attenders) and those not attending PSA-testing (non-attenders), displayed in tables1 2, respectively.

Table 1 Background characteristics for the main study population (attenders)

Background characteristics (n=13 189)	
		N	Per cent (%)	
Previous prostate examination	Yes	7109	54	
	No	5885	45	
	Not available	195	1	
Family history of prostate cancer	Yes	1817	14	
	No	7940	60	
	Not available	3432	26	
Physical exercise	Several times a week	5788	44	
	Once a week	5272	40	
	Never	1862	14	
	Not available	267	2	
Healthy diet	Most commonly	8324	63	
	Sometimes	4082	31	
	Rarely	719	5	
	Not available	64	<1	
Comorbidity	Yes	5306	40	
	No	7402	56	
	Not available	481	4	
Current smoker	Yes	1204	9	
	No	11 879	90	
	Not available	106	1	
Alcohol consumption	I never drink alcohol	999	8	
	Normal	10 740	81	
	Risk consumption	1232	9	
	Not available	218	2	
Degree of education	Elementary school or equivalent	918	7	
	Upper secondary school or equivalent	6291	48	
	University or college	5951	45	
	Not available	29	<1	
Partner	Has partner	10 846	82	
	No partner	2310	18	
	Not available	33	<1	
International prostate symptom score (IPSS)	No or mildly symptomatic	9716	74	
	Moderately symptomatic	2346	18	
	Severely symptomatic	369	3	
	Not available	758	6	
IIEF-5 estimation for erectile function	No erectile dysfunction	6816	52	
	Mild erectile dysfunction	1606	12	
	Mild to moderate erectile dysfunction	491	4	
	Moderate erectile dysfunction	174	1	
	Severe erectile dysfunction	129	<1	
	No sexual activity has occurred	2787	21	
	Not available	1186	9	
Previous prostate examination was defined as answering ‘yes’ to any of the following: previous PSA-testing, previous prostate biopsy, previous digital rectal examination of the prostate, previous MR imagingI and/or ultrasound of the prostate. Family history of prostate cancer was defined as men answering ‘yes’ to having family history of prostate cancer. Comorbidity was dichotomizsed to ‘yes’ or ‘no’ where men answering ‘yes’ to having/having had one or more of the following diseases: myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, coronary stenosis, heart failure, aortic stenosis, atrial fibrillation, COPD, asthma, diabetes, treatment for high cholesterol, stroke, TIA (transient ischemicischaemic attack), aortic aneurysm, peripheral vascular disease, pulmonary thromboembolism, deep vein thrombosis, and/or blood pressure-lowering medication. Smoking status was set to ‘non-smoker’ or ‘current smoker’ if you had been smoking in the last month. Alcohol consumption was divided into ‘risk consumption’ (defined as drinking 2 or more standard units per day), while less than 2 standard units a day counted as ‘not risk consumption’. LUTS was evaluated by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) where a score between 0 and 7 was defined as not or mildly symptomatic; 8–19 as moderately symptomatic; 20–35 as severely symptomatic. ED was evaluated by The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) Questionnaire where scores of 22–25 represented no erectile dysfunction; 17–21 mild erectile dysfunction; 12–16 mild to moderate erectile dysfunction; 8–11 moderate erectile dysfunction; and 5–7 severe erectile dysfunction. Not available (NA) corresponds to the answers ‘Ddo no´’t know/ Ddecline to respond’ or missing answer for a specific variable.

COPDchronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseEDerectile dysfunctionLUTSlower urinary tract symptomsPSAprostate-specific antigen

Table 2 Background characteristics for non-attenders (men who answered the survey but did not take a PSA-test)

Background characteristics (n=1264)	
		N	Per cent (%)	
Previous prostate examination	Not available	23	2	
	Yes	613	48	
	No	628	50	
Family history of prostate cancer	Yes	152	12	
	No	781	62	
	Not available	331	26	
Physical exercise	Several times a week	485	38	
	Once a week	512	41	
	Never	239	19	
	Not available	28	2	
Healthy diet	Most commonly	719	57	
	Sometimes	415	33	
	Rarely	118	9	
	Not available	12	1	
Comorbidity	Yes	548	43	
	No	653	52	
	Not available	63	5	
Smoking last month	Yes	224	18	
	No	1019	81	
	Not available	21	2	
Alcohol consumption	I never drink alcohol	141	11	
	Normal	939	74	
	Risk consumption	152	12	
	Not available	32	3	
Degree of education	Elementary school or equivalent	107	9	
	Upper secondary school or equivalent	627	50	
	University or college	523	41	
	Not available	7	<1	
Partner	Has partner	972	77	
	No partner	282	22	
	Not available	10	<1	
International prostate symptom score (IPSS)	No or mildly symptomatic	933	74	
	Moderately symptomatic	189	15	
	Severely symptomatic	43	3	
	Not available	99	8	
IIEF-5 estimation for erectile function	No erectile dysfunction	598	47	
	Mild erectile dysfunction	150	12	
	Mild to moderate erectile dysfunction	73	6	
	Moderate erectile dysfunction	23	2	
	Severe erectile dysfunction	9	1	
	No sexual activity has occurred	267	21	
	Not available	144	11	
Previous prostate examination was defined as answering ‘yes’ to any of the following: previous PSA-testing, previous prostate biopsy, previous digital rectal examination of the prostate, previous MR imagingI and/or ultrasound of the prostate. Family history of prostate cancer was defined as men answering ‘yes’ to having family history of prostate cancer. Comorbidity was dichotomizsed to ‘yes’ or ‘no’ where men answering ‘yes’ to having/having had one or more of the following diseases: myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, coronary stenosis, heart failure, aortic stenosis, atrial fibrillation, COPD, asthma, diabetes, treatment for high cholesterol, stroke, TIA (transient ischemicischaemic attack), aortic aneurysm, peripheral vascular disease, pulmonary thromboembolism, deep vein thrombosis, and/or blood pressure-lowering medication. Smoking status was set to ‘non-smoker’ or ‘current smoker’ if you had been smoking in the last month. Alcohol consumption was divided into ‘risk consumption’ (defined as drinking 2two or more standard units per day) while less than 2two standard units a day counted as ‘not risk consumption’. LUTS was evaluated by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) where a score between 0 and 7 was defined as not or mildly symptomatic; 8–19 as moderately symptomatic; 20–35 as severely symptomatic. ED was evaluated by The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) questionnaire where scores of 22–25 represented no erectile dysfunction; 17–21 mild erectile dysfunction; 12–16 mild to moderate erectile dysfunction; 8–11 moderate erectile dysfunction; and 5–7 severe erectile dysfunction. Not available (NA) corresponds to the answers ‘Ddo no´’t know/ Ddecline to respond’ or missing answer for a specific variable.

COPDchronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseEDerectile dysfunctionLUTSlower urinary tract symptomsPSAprostate-specific antigen

There were two secondary analyses. In the first, we calculated the proportion of men who estimated their lifetime risk as <15%, between 15% and 25% and >25%. In the second, the association between various factors and men’s perceived lifetime risk was evaluated using linear regression. Potential factors were identified through literature review. After discussion in the research group, the following factors were selected and analysed in a multivariable linear regression model: previous prostate examination, family history of prostate cancer, physical exercise, healthy diet, comorbidity, alcohol consumption, smoking, educational level, marital status, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and erectile dysfunction (ED). Not available (NA) corresponds to the answers ‘do no’t know/decline to respond’ or missing answer for a specific variable. Definitions for all factors are included in table 1.

A p-value below 5% was considered statistically significant. Note that the estimates and p-values are approximate since not all assumptions of a linear regression are fully satisfied. The assumptions of the regression and a sensitivity analysis based on transformed data, which resulted in very similar results, are discussed in the online supplemental document 2. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics, V.27.0.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and R Statistical Software (V.4.0.4).

Results

38 775 men were randomised to screening of whom 17 980 chose to participate by having a PSA-test (figure 2). Of these, 73% (13 189/17 980) completed the survey and responded to the question regarding perceived lifetime risk of prostate cancer. The median of the lifetime risk estimations was 30% (IQR 19 to 50) which was significantly higher than the anticipated risk of 20% (p<0.001) (figure 3). Only 19% (2543/13 189) had a risk estimation similar to the anticipated risk, that is, between 15% and 25%, whereas 59% (7743/13 189) estimated their risk to be above 25% and 22% (2903/13 189) of the men estimated their risk to be below 15%. More than 50% (7109/13 189) had previously undergone some form of prostate examination and 14% (1817/13 189) reported a family history of prostate cancer. Additional background characteristics are shown in table 1. Information on background characteristics for subgroups according to risk estimation (below 15%, 15%–25% and above 25%) are shown in online supplemental table S1.

Figure 3 Box plot on men’s lifetime risk estimates of prostate cancer. Attenders, men who responded to the survey and took a PSA-test. Non-attenders, men who responded to the survey but choose not to take a PSA-test. The red line corresponds to the anticipated lifetime risk of 20% and the yellow line corresponds to a lifetime risk of developing symptomatic prostate cancer of 12%. PSA, prostate-specific antigen.

In the multivariable analysis, factors with a statistically significant association with lifetime risk estimation were as follows: prior prostate examination, family history of prostate cancer, no physical exercise compared with regular physical exercise, rarely or sometimes healthy diet compared with most commonly healthy diet, comorbidity, lower level of education than university or college, moderate to severe LUTS and mild to moderate ED (figure 4). Family history of prostate cancer, moderate to severe LUTS and mild to moderate ED were associated with >5 percentage points higher risk estimation. Factors not statistically significant were smoking, alcohol consumption and intimate partner status. Results are displayed in online supplemental table S2.

Figure 4 Forrest plot showing factors associated with a significant effect on the risk estimation (in percentage points), displayed with a 95% CI. Not available (NA) corresponds to ‘do no’t know/decline to respond’ or missing answer for a specific variable. PC, prostate cancer.

Of the 38 775 randomised men, 1264 men answered the survey but chose not to have a PSA-test (non-attenders). These men also estimated their lifetime risk to a median 30% (IQR 14–50), significantly higher than the anticipated risk of 20% (p<0.001) (figure 3). Additional information regarding non-attenders is presented in table 2. The percentage of men estimating their risk to be lower than 15% were 25.8% (326/1264), 14.5% (183/1264) had a risk estimation between 15–25% and 59.7% (755/1264) estimated their risk to be above 25%.

In the multivariable analysis for non-attenders, factors with a statistically significant association to lifetime risk estimation were: prior prostate examination, family history of prostate cancer, sometimes healthy diet compared with most commonly healthy diet, lower level of education than university or college, severe LUTS (figure 5). Factors associated with >5 percentage points higher risk estimation were family history of prostate cancer, lower level of education than university or college and severe LUTS. Results are shown in online supplemental table S3.

Figure 5 Forrest plot showing factors associated with a significant effect on the risk estimation (in percentage points) for non-attenders (men who answered the survey but did not take a PSA), displayed with a 95% CI. Not available (NA) corresponds to ‘do no’t know/decline to respond’ or missing answer for a specific variable. PC, prostate cancer; PSA, prostate-specific antigen.

Discussion

In this population-based study with more than 13 000 participants, we found that the median of men’s perceived lifetime risk of prostate cancer was approximately 30% which was significantly higher than the average risk in a screening population (20%). Only one in five men estimated their risk between 15% and 25%, and three out of five estimated their risk to be higher than 25%. Hence, on a population level, there is an overestimation, even though for instance men with a family history of prostate cancer are correct in estimating their risk higher than men at average risk. Several factors were significantly associated with perceived risk, including family history of prostate cancer, LUTS and ED which were associated with >5 percentage points higher risk estimation.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest survey investigating how men estimate their lifetime risk of prostate cancer. Other strengths include the high response rate (73%) and the fact that men completed the survey at home before the screening procedures. The main limitation is the risk of selection bias since the study population consisted of men who had chosen to participate in a prostate cancer screening trial. These men could potentially perceive their risk differently than the general public since risk perception affects health-seeking behaviour.1618 Interestingly, non-attenders’ risk estimation was almost the same as attenders’. The median and upper quartile are identical, while more men among attenders predicted their risk low than among non-attenders as can be seen in figure 3. In the linear regression, the statistically significant factors for non-attenders were also significant for attenders. However, more factors were non-significant for non-attenders. This is partly due to the smaller sample size leading to lower power. For instance, the point estimates for comorbidity were higher for non-attenders than for attenders, although not statistically significant. Altogether, the results show that risk estimation among attenders and non-attenders are similar, indicating that these results can be generalised to men of the same age and background.

Most previous studies investigating perceived risk of prostate cancer have asked men to estimate their risk in categories such as low, average, high10 19 20 or as a relative risk compared with the average man102124 rather than a numerical value. Two exceptions were found. The first is a small Swedish study where unaffected men in families with hereditary prostate cancer estimated their own risk to be 50% of receiving a prostate cancer diagnosis and the risk for the general male population to be 33%,12 which is much in line with the estimates reported herein. The second is a telephone interview-based, Australian study in which men estimated their own lifetime risk of prostate cancer to be 25% and the risk for an average man to be 32%.25

Risk assessment is for many people a difficult concept. A limitation of this study is therefore that the risk assessment was done only by a one-item numerical rating scale from 0% to 100%. In previous studies in breast cancer, this type of measurement often resulted in overestimating the risk, because the anchors were sometimes misleading, and some women perceived their risk of developing breast cancer as 50%, not understanding that this means a one in two chance.26 However, we acknowledge that there is no gold standard measurement for perceived risk and the one-item numerical rating scale is a validated instrument with acceptable psychometric properties that outperforms other items and formats and is frequently used.27 28

There were other questions regarding how well men understood the concept of lifetime risk. Many men probably interpret lifetime risk of prostate cancer as the lifetime risk of developing symptomatic prostate cancer, not being aware that participating in PSA screening also increases the risk of overdiagnosis of asymptomatic cancer. This speculation is supported by the fact that men who choose not to have a PSA-test estimated their risk almost identical to men who were PSA-tested. The lifetime risk of symptomatic prostate cancer before the PSA-era has been estimated to approximately 11%–13% which means that if men interpreted the question as lifetime risk of symptomatic prostate cancer, the overestimation was even larger (figure 3).2931 We based the anticipated risk of prostate cancer on the observed 24 year cumulative incidence of prostate cancer in the screening group of the G1 trial in order to have a risk estimate from a screening setting. Even though this is not a lifetime risk since not all men in the G1 trial have died, we believe that it is a fair estimate since the incidence curve has flattened out due to deaths from competing events (unpublished data).15 Figures similar to our estimate have also been published by others.29 32

We can only speculate why men in our study overestimated their risk of prostate cancer. Public campaigns aiming at raising awareness about prostate cancer and the invitation letter mentioning ‘prostate cancer is the most common cancer among Swedish men’ may influence men’s perception. Family history of prostate cancer is a well-known risk factor for prostate cancer and in some studies, it has been associated with a two- to threefold higher risk for prostate cancer.3335 The higher estimated risk in men reporting a family history of prostate cancer could therefore be an adequate risk estimation for these men. Men with symptoms (LUTS and/or ED) also estimated their risk higher. This finding is not surprising since men often associate urinary symptoms with prostate cancer and is often included in patient information materials.36 For example, on the official information website for the Swedish healthcare system, frequency, a weak stream and urinary hesitance are listed as typical symptoms of prostate cancer.37 Most men with LUTS however, do not suffer from prostate cancer but rather have benign prostate enlargement and the association between LUTS and prostate cancer is weak.3840

The inconsistency between the perceived and actual risk of developing prostate cancer is an important finding for several reasons. First, since higher perceived risk is linked to higher worry for cancer,41 men’s overestimation could mean that they worry about prostate cancer unnecessarily and improved information could potentially reduce this anxiety. Second, if men do not have an accurate risk estimate, they cannot make a truly informed decision as to whether to be screened for prostate cancer or not. Third, given our results that men associate LUTS with prostate cancer risk, this is a group that particularly could benefit from improved information. Many men may worry about prostate cancer since LUTS are very common.42 These men may decide to have a PSA-test based on the assumption that they are at risk for prostate cancer, while those without urinary dysfunction may abstain from testing themselves in a false sense of security, believing that they are not at risk for prostate cancer, potentially leading to a delayed diagnosis.

Our findings show that men overestimate their risk of prostate cancer, and thereby potentially also overestimate the benefit of screening which is in line with other reports showing that both patients and healthcare workers tend to overestimate the benefits from medical interventions.43 44 Thus, there is a need to improve information concerning prostate cancer risk, risk of overdiagnosis and outcomes after medical interventions helping men to get a realistic risk perception. Prediction models may help to obtain personalised risk estimates. Such improved information could be communicated using icon arrays and numerical risk estimates, so that men can make a well-informed decision on whether to be screened or not for prostate cancer.45 Urinary symptoms is a common reason why men ask for PSA-testing but the link between urinary symptoms and prostate cancer should be removed36 40 and the public messaging should instead emphasise that prostate cancer commonly is silent or asymptomatic, particularly in the curable stages of the disease. Men with urinary symptoms should have the same information regarding benefits and harms of screening for prostate cancer.

Conclusion

We found that men choosing to participate in prostate cancer screening overestimate their risk of prostate cancer, only one in five men had a risk estimate close to the anticipated risk. In order for men to truly make an informed decision on whether to be screened for prostate cancer or not, an adequate risk perception is a key component. Our findings, therefore, highlight the need for improved information concerning prostate cancer risk.

supplementary material

10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083562 online supplemental file 1

10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083562 online supplemental file 2

10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083562 online supplemental file 3

10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083562 online supplemental file 4

10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083562 online supplemental file 5

Acknowledgements

We thank Helén Ahlgren, Emelie Tubbin and nurse Maria Nyberg, of the GÖTEBORG-2 study administration.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

Review Process File
17 08 2024

Funding: The GÖTEBORG-2 trial has been supported by the Karin and Christer Johansson’s Foundation (number N/A), the ALF-agreement (number 966044), the Swedish Cancer Society (number N/A), Regional Cancer Center Western Region Sweden (number N/A), the Swedish Prostate Cancer Association (number N/A), grants from the Swedish state under the agreement between the Swedish government and the county councils (number N/A), the Swedish Research Council (number N/A), Biocare (number N/A), AFA Insurance (number N/A) and the Nordic Cancer Union (number N/A). EP’s work on this project was partially funded by a grant from Konrad and Helfrid Johansson’s Foundation. SC’s work on this project was funded in part through the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30-CA008748.

Prepublication history and additional supplemental material for this paper are available online. To view these files, please visit the journal online (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083562).

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Patient consent for publication: Not applicable.

Ethics approval: This study involves human participants and was approved by the ethical committee of the University of Gothenburg, EPN 2015-890-14. The study used an opt out design in accordance with the ethical approval.

Data availability free text: Data will only be made available on group-level upon request.

Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting or dissemination plans of this research.

Correction notice: This article has been corrected since it was published. Licence has been updated to CC-BY on 10th September 2024.
==== Refs
References

1 Schröder FH Hugosson J Roobol MJ et al Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study N Engl J Med 2009 360 1320 8 10.1056/NEJMoa0810084 19297566
2 Hugosson J Roobol MJ Månsson M et al A 16-yr follow-up of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer Eur Urol 2019 76 43 51 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.009 30824296
3 Frånlund M Månsson M Godtman RA et al Results from 22 years of followup in the Göteborg randomized population-based prostate cancer screening trial J Urol 2022 208 292 300 10.1097/JU.0000000000002696 35422134
4 Potosky AL Davis WW Hoffman RM et al Five-year outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study J Natl Cancer Inst 2004 96 1358 67 10.1093/jnci/djh259 15367568
5 Punnen S Cowan JE Chan JM et al Long-term health-related quality of life after primary treatment for localized prostate cancer: results from the CaPSURE registry Eur Urol 2015 68 600 8 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.074 25242555
6 Heijnsdijk EAM Wever EM Auvinen A et al Quality-of-life effects of prostate-specific antigen screening N Engl J Med 2012 367 595 605 10.1056/NEJMoa1201637 22894572
7 Mottet N. BJ Briers E Bolla M et al Guidelines on prostate cancer arnhem The Netherlands EAU Guidelines Office 2021 Available https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer
8 Force UPST Screening for prostate cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement JAMA 2018 319 1901 13 10.1001/jama.2018.3710 29801017
9 Rice LJ Jefferson M Briggs V et al Discordance in perceived risk and epidemiological outcomes of prostate cancer among African American men Prev Med Rep 2017 7 1 6 10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.04.010 28507891
10 Shavers VL Underwood W Moser RP Race/ethnicity and the perception of the risk of developing prostate cancer Am J Prev Med 2009 37 64 7 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.03.007 19423272
11 Beebe‐Dimmer JL Wood DP Gruber SB et al Risk perception and concern among brothers of men with prostate carcinoma Cancer 2004 100 1537 44 10.1002/cncr.20121 15042690
12 Bratt O Damber JE Emanuelsson M et al Risk perception, screening practice and interest in genetic testing among unaffected men in families with hereditary prostate cancer Eur J Cancer 2000 36 235 41 10.1016/s0959-8049(99)00272-5 10741283
13 Kohestani K Månsson M Arnsrud Godtman R et al The GÖTEBORG prostate cancer screening 2 trial: a prospective, randomised, population-based prostate cancer screening trial with prostate-specific antigen testing followed by magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate Scand J Urol 2021 55 116 24 10.1080/21681805.2021.1881612 33612068
14 Hugosson J Månsson M Wallström J et al Prostate cancer screening with PSA and MRI followed by targeted biopsy only N Engl J Med 2022 387 2126 37 10.1056/NEJMoa2209454 36477032
15 Carlsson SV Arnsrud Godtman R Pihl C-G et al Young age on starting prostate-specific antigen testing is associated with a greater reduction in prostate cancer mortality: 24-year follow-up of the Göteborg randomized population-based prostate cancer screening trial Eur Urol 2023 83 103 9 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.10.006 36334968
16 Brewer NT Weinstein ND Cuite CL et al Risk perceptions and their relation to risk behavior Ann Behav Med 2004 27 125 30 10.1207/s15324796abm2702_7 15026296
17 Klein WMP Stefanek ME Cancer risk elicitation and communication: lessons from the psychology of risk perception CA Cancer J Clin 2007 57 147 67 10.3322/canjclin.57.3.147 17507441
18 Avery KNL Metcalfe C Vedhara K et al Predictors of attendance for prostate-specific antigen screening tests and prostate biopsy Eur Urol 2012 62 649 55 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.12.059 22244151
19 Forbat L Place M Kelly D et al A cohort study reporting clinical risk factors and individual risk perceptions of prostate cancer: implications for PSA testing BJU Int 2013 111 389 95 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11316.x 23030810
20 Dillard AJ Couper MP Zikmund-Fisher BJ Perceived risk of cancer and patient reports of participation in DECISIONS about screening: the DECISIONS study Med Decis Making 2010 30 96S 105S 10.1177/0272989X10377660 20881158
21 Fredsøe J Kirkegaard P Edwards A et al A genetic risk assessment for prostate cancer influences patients’ risk perception and use of repeat PSA testing: A cross-sectional study in Danish general practice BJGP Open 2020 4 bjgpopen20X101039 10.3399/bjgpopen20X101039
22 Fitzpatrick JM Kirby RS Brough CL et al Awareness of prostate cancer among patients and the general public: results of an international survey Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2009 12 347 54 10.1038/pcan.2009.30 19621026
23 Ward JE Hughes AM Hirst GH et al Men’s estimates of prostate cancer risk and self-reported rates of screening Med J Aust 1997 167 250 3 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1997.tb125048.x 9315012
24 Koitsalu M Eklund M Adolfsson J et al Predictors of participation in risk-based prostate cancer screening PLoS One 2018 13 e0200409 10.1371/journal.pone.0200409 29990335
25 Clarke VA Lovegrove H Williams A et al Unrealistic optimism and the Health Belief Model J Behav Med 2000 23 367 76 10.1023/a:1005500917875 10984865
26 Katapodi MC Lee KA Facione NC et al Predictors of perceived breast cancer risk and the relation between perceived risk and breast cancer screening: a meta-analytic review Prev Med 2004 38 388 402 10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.11.012 15020172
27 Gurmankin Levy A Shea J Williams SV et al Measuring perceptions of breast cancer risk Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006 15 1893 8 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0482 17035396
28 Schapira MM Davids SL McAuliffe TL et al Agreement between scales in the measurement of breast cancer risk perceptions Risk Anal 2004 24 665 73 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00466.x 15209937
29 Orrason AW Westerberg M Albertsen P et al Diagnostic activity impacts lifetime risk of prostate cancer diagnosis more strongly than life expectancy PLoS One 2022 17 e0277784 10.1371/journal.pone.0277784 36417412
30 Lloyd T Hounsome L Mehay A et al Lifetime risk of being diagnosed with, or dying from, prostate cancer by major ethnic group in England 2008-2010 BMC Med 2015 13 171 10.1186/s12916-015-0405-5 26224061
31 Pathirana T Hayen A Doust J et al Lifetime risk of prostate cancer overdiagnosis in Australia: quantifying the risk of overdiagnosis associated with prostate cancer screening in Australia using a novel lifetime risk approach BMJ Open 2019 9 e022457 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022457
32 Gandaglia G Leni R Bray F et al Epidemiology and prevention of prostate cancer Eur Urol Oncol 2021 4 877 92 10.1016/j.euo.2021.09.006 34716119
33 Permuth-Wey J Egan KM Family history is a significant risk factor for pancreatic cancer: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis Fam Cancer 2009 8 109 17 10.1007/s10689-008-9214-8 18763055
34 Perez-Cornago A Key TJ Allen NE et al Prospective investigation of risk factors for prostate cancer in the UK Biobank cohort study Br J Cancer 2017 117 1562 71 10.1038/bjc.2017.312 28910820
35 Mettlin C Natarajan N Huben R et al Reported family history of cancer in 1,271 prostate cancer cases and 1,909 controls Urol Oncol 1995 1 240 5 10.1016/1078-1439(96)00013-0 21224125
36 Gnanapragasam VJ Greenberg D Burnet N Urinary symptoms and prostate cancer-the misconception that may be preventing earlier presentation and better survival outcomes BMC Med 2022 20 264 10.1186/s12916-022-02453-7 35922801
37 Susanna Schultz Prostatacancer: 1177 (updated 2019-10-17) Available https://www.1177.se/Vastra-Gotaland/sjukdomar--besvar/cancer/cancerformer/prostatacancer
38 Chandra Engel J Palsdottir T Aly M et al Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are not associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer in men 50-69 years with PSA ≥3 ng/ml Scand J Urol 2020 54 1 6 10.1080/21681805.2019.1703806 31876229
39 Collin SM Metcalfe C Donovan J et al Associations of lower urinary tract symptoms with prostate-specific antigen levels, and screen-detected localized and advanced prostate cancer: a case-control study nested within the UK population-based ProtecT (Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment) study BJU Int 2008 102 1400 6 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07817.x 18540932
40 Frånlund M Carlsson S Stranne J et al The absence of voiding symptoms in men with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration of ≥3.0 ng/mL is an independent risk factor for prostate cancer: results from the Gothenburg Randomized Screening Trial BJU Int 2012 110 638 43 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10962.x 22540895
41 Schnur JB DiLorenzo TA Montgomery GH et al Perceived risk and worry about prostate cancer: a proposed conceptual model Behav Med 2006 32 89 96 10.3200/BMED.32.3.89-96 17120384
42 Platz EA Joshu CE Mondul AM et al Incidence and progression of lower urinary tract symptoms in a large prospective cohort of United States men J Urol 2012 188 496 501 10.1016/j.juro.2012.03.125 22704110
43 Hoffmann TC Del Mar C Patients’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review JAMA Intern Med 2015 175 274 86 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6016 25531451
44 Hoffmann TC Del Mar C Clinicians’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review JAMA Intern Med 2017 177 407 19 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.8254 28097303
45 Pathirana TI Pickles K Riikonen JM et al Including information on overdiagnosis in shared decision making: a review of prostate cancer screening decision aids MDM Policy Pract 2022 7 23814683221129875 10.1177/23814683221129875 36247841
