[Advantages and risks of the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the health-care area No. 4 of Gijon (Asturias)].

Objectives: The diagnosis of prostate cancer has changed significantly with the introduction of PSA in the clinical practice. Despite screening is under controversy the use of PSA has become widespread. The objective of this paper is to know the use of PSA in our health-care area and to analyze perceived risks and benefits.
Methods: From the informatic archives we analyze PSA determinations performed in our health-care area (290.956 citizens) over 2000 and 2001. We also analyzed prostate biopsies generated and number of cancers detected.
Results: 25.519 PSA determinations were performed. 59% came from general practitioners (GP), 34% from urologists and 7% from the rest of specialists. 39% are performed to men older than 70 years. PSA was normal in 78.7% of the patients and higher than 4 ng/ml in 21.2%. 488 prostatic biopsies were performed diagnosing 178 cancers (diagnostic yield 36.5%). Depending on the first PSA, diagnosis was started by a GP in 44% of the cases, a urologist in 46%, and the remaining 10% by other specialists. Mean time from first PSA to diagnosis was 5 months, without significant differences between GPs and specialities . The use of PSA by GPs is variable (between 8.1 and 45.8 determinations per 100 men over 50 years), without significant differences in prostate cancer detection by number of PSAs or differences in age. In comparison with the period 1982-1993 the incidence of prostate cancer goes from 30.76 to 52.8 new cases/100.000 inhabitants/year. There is a greater incidence and increase of cancer in the rural area (from 33.52 to 221.1 new cases/ 100.000 inhabitants/year).
Conclusions: We confirm the general use of this test and the trend to screening in the primary health-care level, which participates in an important manner in the diagnosis. PSA brings forward the diagnosis of prostate cancer 5 years in our area, and shoots its incidence rates. The high use of such marker in our population of advanced age may be considered inadequate.