Prostate Cancer (PCa) is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death among men in the United States [1-3]. Black race is a major risk factor for PCa. Although PCa incidence and mortality has declined nationally since the 1990s, in 2016 PCa was reported as the leading site for new cancer cases for Black men [3]. Further, Black men have the highest incidence and mortality rate of any racial or ethnic group in the United States from this disease [4].

To address persistent PCa disparities among Black men, community cancer screening events have shown promise for connecting medically underserved patients to healthcare resources and health promotion information [5-7]. Community cancer screening events are partnerships between healthcare systems and community stakeholders to provide free or reduced-cost screenings and cancer education for members of the local community. An example of an established community-based screening program that provides free PSA screenings and PCa prevention and disease education in the St. Louis, MO city and metropolitan area is the Prostate Cancer Community Partnership (PCCP), an academic-community partnership within the Siteman Cancer Center’s Program for the Elimination of Cancer Disparities (PECaD) [8].

For men $>$50 years old with an average risk of PCa and men $>$45 years old with a high-risk of PCa, current screening recommendations by the United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) encourages shared decision making before undergoing a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening [9,10]. Numerous investigations report that men with a primary healthcare provider are more likely to engage in shared decision making conversations regarding the appropriateness of annual screenings [11,12]. However, there is limited evidence of other predictors of annual screenings for high-risk populations. To this end, we used data from a subpopulation of Black men attending a community-screening event to investigate the predictors of annual PSA screening. The objective of this study is to determine the prevalence and factors associated with annual PSA screening in a cohort of Black men participating in a community-screening event.

To elucidate predictors that contribute to annual PSA screening for Black men, our study used data from Black male participants from an urban community-based PCa screening event. We assessed annual PSA screening, risk factors for PCa, and sociodemographic characteristics. Approximately one-third of the respondents had an annual PSA screening in the previous year. Age and having a primary healthcare provider significantly predicted annual PSA screening in the fully adjusted model.

The current study reported that older age and having a healthcare provider predicted annual PSA screening in a sample of Black men attending a community screening event. There are mixed results on predictors contributing to regular prostate cancer screening. Our study is consistent with previous findings that Black men with history of a first-degree relative with PCa were not more significantly likely to have an annual PSA [13]. A few studies report that socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with regular screening [14-18]. However, our results show that SES factors are not predictive of prostate cancer screening among Black men. Having access to a primary care provider is the significant predictor of prostate cancer screening. SES is an important determinant to consider when addressing racial disparities across the cancer continuum; however, for screening, having a primary care provider is the most important factor.

Primary healthcare providers are the foremost cancer information resources for Black men [19-22]. Patient-provider communication about PSA screening is positively associated with PSA uptake. In light of the 2012 USPSTF recommendations, Choi et al. reports interprofessional differences in the perception of and preferences for recommendations other than the 2012 USPSTF’s (e.g., recommendations from the American Cancer Society and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) between nurse practitioners, physicians, physician assistants, and registered nurses. In the same study, patients did not receive consistent messaging relevant PSA screening uptake, including the understanding that a PSA screening is an individualized choice, not all doctors recommend PSA testing, and evidence on the effectiveness of a PSA screen to saves lives is inconclusive. To standardize relevant PSA screening messages between providers, a shared decision-making tool has the potential to aid patient-provider communication regarding the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening [23,24].

Understanding of predictors of annual PSA screening among Black men can improve patient-provider communication regarding PCa screening for high-risk populations and has both clinical and health promotion implications. For Black men, healthcare providers and family members are effective channels for communicating cancer information [19,25,26]. While 85% of this population had a healthcare provider, almost one-third of the participants did not know if they had a close family member with a history of PCa. Previous studies have reported a need to improve communication between patients and first-degree relatives [27]. This type of conversation can become challenging for providers when patients and their relatives no longer communicate because of death or social distance. Potential avenues to facilitate patient-provider communication about the risks associated with a first-degree relative with a history of PCa are decision aid tools [27], health promotion materials targeted at communication with relatives [26], or conversational approaches to ask surviving relatives.

Although this study used a sample of Black men who attended an urban, locally advertised screening event, the present sample generally had a higher representation of educated, older, partnered, Black men. Thus, our findings are not likely to be generalizable to populations beyond those represented by our sample, and future studies conducted in similar subpopulations are warranted. Our limited sample size may have also resulted in reduced statistical power, especially conclusions about associations with relatively weak magnitude, including education and insurance status as a predictor of history of PCA screening. Secondly, annual PCa screening data are retrospective self-reports among men who attended a community screening event. Men at community events may be more likely to be up to date with health screenings; however, these community events were held in several non-health related community settings including churches, community walks, and community festivals which reached a wide range of people. An additional limitation of this study is the limited sample size (n = 447). A final limitation of this study the study sample data of a subpopulation of men (n = 93) attending the screening event from 2010–2011 may be limited to reporting bias, as they may have reported the 2010 screening event as having a PSA in the last 12 months on the 2011 mail-in survey. We conducted a sensitivity analysis where the men who had a screening event in 2010 were excluded; results were consistent with our primary analysis. Notably, race is not a proxy for biological or genetic variations, and self-reported race is a social construct with complex and still unknown implications [28]. Although this study’s focuses is on Black men and PCa screening, no conclusions were made about genetic or biological variations related to race or ethnicity.

Black race is a risk factor for PCa, and Black men have the highest incidence and mortality associated with this disease. The current study reports sociodemographic and healthcare utilization predictors associated with annual PSA screening among Black men. Findings from this study have clinical and health promotion implications. Information regarding the factors that are associated with annual PSA screening for Black men has the potential to improve health education provided by community screening events for high-risk populations.

All authors listed have sufficiently contributed to the development, editorial changes, and final approval of the final manuscript. MWL-T conceptualized the work, interpreted of the data, and wrote the manuscript. SK conducted the data analysis and assisted with the interpretation of the data. VH conduced data analysis and assisted with drafting the manuscript. BFD acquired the data and assisted with the interpretation of the data.

All participants completed an informed consent form. The study received approval by the Washington University Institutional Review Board (approval number: 201105114).

We would like to express our gratitude to all those who helped me during the writing of this manuscript, and thanks to all the peer reviewers for their opinions and suggestions.

This research was funded by the NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE (No. T32CA190194, 1U54CA153460-01, and 1 U01 CA114594-01). This research also received funds from the ST. LOUIS MENS GROUP AGAINST CANCER. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, the BARNES-JEWISH HOSPITAL FOUNDATION, the SITEMAN CANCER CENTER, and the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROSTATE CANCER RESEARCH PROGRAM (No. PC170130). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official view of the National Institutes of Health.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author MWL-T, upon reasonable request.