Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Cancer Res Treat : Cancer Research and Treatment

Search
Advanced Search
OPEN ACCESS
mobile search button mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 57(2); 2025 > Article
Original Article
Genitourinary cancer Determinants of Prostate Cancer Screening in Korean Men: A Nationwide Study Using the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2023
Giap Viet Nguyen1orcid, Kyeongmin Lee1, Hyeon Ji Lee1, EunKyo Kang1,2, Mina Suh1,2, Jae Kwan Jun1,2, Kui Son Choi1,2,orcid
Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2025;57(2):539-546.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2024.879
Published online: October 29, 2024

1Department of Cancer Control and Population Health, National Cancer Center Graduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, Goyang, Korea

2National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea

Correspondence: Kui Son Choi, Graduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, National Cancer Center, 323 Ilsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang 10408, Korea
Tel: 82-31-920-2912 E-mail: kschoi@ncc.re.kr
• Received: September 8, 2024   • Accepted: October 28, 2024

Copyright © 2025 by the Korean Cancer Association

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 907 Views
  • 60 Download
prev next
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Purpose
    Research on the prevalence of prostate cancer (PCa) screening and reasons for undergoing screening is limited. We aimed to identify the factors influencing PCa screening behavior and explore the underlying motivations among Korean men.
  • Materials and Methods
    This cross-sectional study used data from the 2023 Korean National Cancer Screening Survey, which employs a nationally representative random sampling method. This study included 1,784 men aged 40-74 years. The respondents reported their experiences with PCa screening. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify the factors associated with participation in PCa screening.
  • Results
    The lifetime PCa screening rate was 18.6%. Among screening modalities, transrectal ultrasonography was the most frequently used (31.9%), followed by prostate-specific antigen tests (25.6%) and digital rectal examinations (21.5%). The multivariable analysis identified several factors that significantly increased the likelihood of screening participation, including older age, living with a spouse, poor self-reported health, and abstinence from alcohol consumption in the previous 12 months. Men who had undergone colorectal cancer screening were more likely to participate in PCa screening (adjusted odds ratio, 4.01; 95% confidence interval, 2.03 to 7.93) than those who had not. The primary motivations for screening were recommendations from family or social networks (31.9%) and inclusion in health examination packages (24.3%), whereas healthcare provider recommendations (18%) and symptomatic concerns (5.7%) were the least influential.
  • Conclusion
    Our findings highlight the importance of providing evidence-based information for PCa screening recommendations and the need for improved communication and implementation of a shared decision-making approach for PCa screening in Korea.
  • Key words: Prostatic neoplasms, Screening, Prostate-specific antigen
Prostate cancer (PCa) occupies a prominent position in global and Korean male cancer epidemiology, ranking as the second most prevalent malignancy worldwide and the fourth most common cancer among Korean men in 2022 [1]. Between 2000 and 2020, the crude death rate for PCa increased substantially, rising from 1.2 to 4.3 per 100,000 individuals, establishing PCa as the leading cause of mortality among urological malignancies [2]. Additionally, demographic projections for Korea indicate a significant shift toward an aging population [3]. This demographic transition is expected to have profound implications for PCa epidemiology in Korea, given the well-established association between advanced age and PCa risk [2,4-6]. Projections suggest that by 2034, PCa will become the second most frequently diagnosed malignancy among Korean men, following lung cancer, and will surpass the incidence rates of both colorectal and stomach cancers [3].
In 2018, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines recommended that men aged 55-69 years engage in shared decision-making (SDM) with healthcare providers regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for PCa. This process should precede any individualized screening decision, considering the potential benefits and harms [7]. In 2023, the American Urological Association (AUA) updated its guidelines recommending that clinicians should offer PSA-based PCa screening to men aged 45-50 years, emphasizing SDM [8]. This marks a shift to a younger age range compared with the 2013 guidelines, which focused on men aged 55-69 years. The selection of screening modalities, such as PSA testing, digital rectal examination (DRE), and magnetic resonance imaging, continues to be debated because of the different advantages and disadvantages associated with each [9-14].
Currently, the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea does not include PCa and recommends screening only for stomach, colon, lung, liver, breast, and cervical cancers. PCa screening is often considered an opportunistic screening method. Comprehensive health examination packages typically include various tests and screenings with PCa screening options such as PSA tests, transrectal ultrasonography, and DRE. However, research on the prevalence of PCa screening and reasons for undergoing screening is lacking. Although some studies have examined the factors affecting PCa screening behavior in Korean men, they have not comprehensively addressed the range of screening modalities and motivations [15,16]. Thus, this study was conducted to provide insights into PCa screening trends in Korea, as specific data on how many men receive PCa screenings and their motivations for doing so are limited. We aimed to identify the factors influencing PCa screening behavior and explore the underlying motivations of the Korean population.
1. Study source
We used data from the 2023 Korean National Cancer Screening Survey (KNCSS), which has been conducted annually to evaluate cancer screening participation rates and their associated determinants among Korean adults. The survey’s demographic focus encompasses men aged 40-74 years and women aged 20-74 years, aligning with the age-specific recommendations for the six malignancies included in the Republic of Korea’s National Cancer Screening Program. To ensure national representativeness, the KNCSS uses a stratified multistage sampling design based on population data categorized by region, age, and sex, as provided by the National Statistical Office of Korea. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews conducted by specialized survey agencies.
The recruitment process involved repeated household visits, with a maximum of three contact attempts per residence. One eligible individual was selected from each household. Explanations were provided to all participants, and informed consent was obtained before they participated in the survey. Previous studies have provided comprehensive details regarding the sampling methods [17,18].
Among the 4,500 participants in the 2023 KNCSS, we specifically included male participants aged 40-74 years to examine PCa screening practices.
2. Measurements/questionnaires
The screening status and modalities for PCa screening were determined using a structured questionnaire. The participants provided information on sociodemographic factors and history of PCa screening. The questions included “Have you ever undergone PCa screening?” and “What screening method have you experienced?” (with multiple options). For screening intervals, the participants were asked, “When was your last PCa screening using this method?” To identify the main motivation for PCa screening, the participants were asked, “What motivated you to undergo PCa screening?” Lifetime screening was defined as having undergone PCa screening at least once. Residential areas were categorized into metropolitan, urban, and rural regions based on provincial administrative divisions, as detailed in a previous study [19].
We considered several key sociodemographic factors. These included age groups (40-49, 50-59, 60-69, and 70-74 years), marital status (with or without a spouse), education level (secondary school graduate or lower, high school graduate, and university graduate or higher), monthly household income (≤ 3,000,000 KRW; 3,000,000-4,490,000 KRW; ≥ 4,500,000 KRW), private insurance status, self-reported health status (poor, average, and good), smoking status (non-smoker, former smoker, and current smoker), alcohol consumption in the past 12 months, body mass index (≤ 22.9 kg/m2, 23-24.9 kg/m2, and ≥ 25 kg/m2), family history of any type of cancer, and lifetime participation in colorectal cancer screening.
3. Statistical analysis
This study provides a descriptive analysis of PCa screening behaviors using frequencies and percentages to examine their relationship with various sociodemographic and health-related factors, such as age, marital status, education, income, insurance status, and health behaviors. Cancer screening rates were adjusted using the survey sample weights. Associations between categorical variables and PCa screening were assessed using the chi-square test. Two-stage regression analyses, including univariate and multivariable logistic regression, were performed to identify the factors significantly associated with participation in PCa screening. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. All analyses were performed using SAS ver. 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.).
In total, 1,784 individuals were included in the study. Among the 1,784 men, 18.6% underwent PCa screening (Table 1). High screening rates were found in men aged 70-74 years (42.3%), those reporting poor health (44.8%), those living with a spouse (19.4%), those with lower education levels (23.6%), and those with a monthly income of ≤ 3,000,000 KRW (23.2%). Former smokers (23.6%) and men who had abstained from alcohol consumption in the past 12 months (25.4%) also had high screening rates. Additionally, men with a family history of cancer had an increased likelihood of undergoing PCa screening (25.4%).
A significantly strong positive correlation was observed between screening rates for PCa and colorectal cancer (r=0.66, p < 0.001) (Fig. 1).
Among 333 men who reported undergoing PCa screening, only 12.3% underwent their most recent screening within the past year (Table 2). In contrast, approximately half (49.6%) of the participants reported that their last PCa screening was > 2 years before the survey. Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) was the most frequently reported screening modality (31.9%), followed by PSA testing (25.6%) and DRE (21.5%). Abdominal computed tomography was relatively less common, accounting for 17.5% of screenings, whereas prostate magnetic resonance imaging was the least common (3.3%). The prevalence of PSA-based screening was 7.1%. Among the 333 men screened, only 15 were advised to undergo additional tests, with TRUS (47.1%) and PSA testing (35.3%) being the most commonly recommended follow-up examinations. Recommendations from family, relatives, or social circles (31.9%) and comprehensive health examination packages (24.3%) were significant motivators for screening participation. In contrast, healthcare provider recommendations and PCa symptoms were relatively less influential, motivating 18% and 5.7% of the participants, respectively.
We conducted univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify the factors associated with participation in PCa screening (Table 3). Men aged 50-59 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75 to 4.12), 60-69 (aOR, 5.77; 95% CI, 3.62 to 9.20), and 70-74 (aOR, 13.94; 95% CI, 7.52 to 25.86) years were significantly more likely to undergo PCa screening than men aged 40-49 years. Men living with a spouse were more likely to undergo screening (aOR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.07 to 3.26) than those without a spouse. Additionally, men with a university degree or higher (aOR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.39 to 4.56) had greater odds of undergoing PCa screening than those with lower educational levels. Health status and lifestyle factors were also significantly associated with PCa screening. Men who rated their health as average or poor and those who reported abstaining from alcohol consumption in the past year demonstrated an increased likelihood of undergoing PCa screening. Moreover, a significant association was observed between colorectal cancer screening and PCa screening; men who had undergone colorectal cancer screening (aOR, 4.01; 95% CI, 2.03 to 7.93) were considerably more likely to be screened for PCa than those who had not been screened for colorectal cancer.
In this study, we aimed to assess the PCa screening rate among Korean men aged 40-74 years and identify factors associated with screening behavior. Our findings indicated that approximately 18.6% of participants in this age group underwent PCa screening. The prevalence of PSA-based screening was 7.1%. This rate is lower than that reported in previous studies. Data from the 2016 National Health Insurance Services showed an overall PSA test rate of 7.27%, and an online survey by The Korean Urological Oncology Society reported a PSA-based screening rate of 16.7% [20,21]. Furthermore, the PCa screening rate in our study remained below that reported in other developed nations, including the United States and several European countries [22-24]. Comparing PCa screening rates across countries and studies is inherently challenging because of differences in study methodologies, including variations in the use of questionnaires and the predominant reliance on PSA testing alone in most studies as opposed to the use of multiple screening modalities in our study.
This study showed that PCa screening was prevalent among older men, particularly among those aged 70-74 years. This finding is consistent with the results of previous studies showing that the likelihood of undergoing PCa screening increases with age [21,23,25,26]. Other factors associated with an increased frequency of PCa screening included living with a spouse, reporting average or poor health status, and having a university degree or higher education. In contrast, men who consumed alcohol in the past 12 months were relatively less likely to undergo PCa screening.
Univariate and multivariable analyses yielded different results regarding the association between education level and participation in PCa screening. In the univariate analysis, men with a university degree or higher education had lower odds of undergoing PCa screening (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.94) than those with lower education. However, after adjusting for potential confounding variables in the multivariable logistic regression model, these men had higher odds of participating in PCa screening (aOR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.39 to 4.56). This apparent discrepancy can largely be attributed to the confounding effect of age on education level. Specifically, men in the 70-74 years age group who showed the highest likelihood of undergoing PCa screening were likely to have lower levels of education. Thus, age acted as a confounder, initially masking the positive association between higher education level and participation in PCa screening.
Individuals who had undergone colorectal cancer screening were significantly more likely to undergo PCa screening (aOR, 4.01; 95% CI, 2.03 to 7.93) than those who had not undergone colorectal cancer screening. This finding is consistent with those of previous studies that explored the relationship between colorectal cancer screening uptake and PSA-based PCa screening [25,27]. This correlation suggests that individuals who engage in one type of cancer screening are likely to participate in other screening behaviors. The higher likelihood of undergoing PCa screening among those who attend colorectal cancer screenings presents both opportunities and challenges. On the one hand, it may facilitate early detection in high-risk individuals; on the other hand, it highlights the need for clear communication regarding the differing recommendations for these two cancer types. Given the observed correlation between colorectal cancer and PCa screening behaviors, healthcare providers should leverage these opportunities to offer risk-stratified counseling for PCa screening in accordance with current guidelines [7,8].
The current USPSTF and AUA guidelines emphasize the importance of informed decision-making for PSA-based screening, considering the potential benefits and risks associated with the procedure. In alignment with this emphasis, a recent study conducted in 2023 investigated the effectiveness of web-based decision aids for PCa screening in Korea, highlighting the potential clinical significance of the decision-making process [28]. Despite these guideline recommendations and emerging research, our study revealed that only 18% of participants who underwent screening did so based on recommendations from healthcare providers. This low percentage suggests a potential communication gap between providers and patients regarding PCa screenings. However, this figure alone does not fully capture how physicians communicate these recommendations to participants. Therefore, it is crucial to assess the current implementation, effectiveness, and challenges of SDM for PCa screening in Korea. Additionally, physicians’ competencies in facilitating this process must be evaluated to ensure that patients are adequately informed and supported in making decisions regarding screening options.
Our study has several limitations. First, the cross-sectional design prevented determination of the direction of causal relationships between PCa screening and other factors. Second, our reliance on self-reported data, despite standardized interviewer training, may have introduced a recall bias. Third, we were unable to include family history of PCa in our analysis because of the limited number of participants. This limitation is particularly salient, given the recent USPSTF guidelines from 2018, which advocate for a risk-stratified approach to PCa screening, emphasizing factors such as racial background and family history [7]. Furthermore, in 2023, the AUA expanded its recommendations, advising clinicians to offer PCa screening beginning at ages 40-45 years for high-risk men, specifically those of African descent, carriers of specific genetic mutations, and individuals with a strong family history of PCa [8]. Therefore, exclusion of family history data from our analysis limited our ability to comprehensively evaluate this potentially significant determinant of participation in PCa screening. This omission may have implications for the complete interpretation of the factors influencing screening behaviors in our study population.
Nevertheless, this study offers an up-to-date and comprehensive analysis of PCa screening rates and associated factors using data from the 2023 KNCSS. This study makes a significant contribution to the body of research in Korea by examining the motivating factors that influence individuals undergoing PCa screening. Further studies focusing on Korean men’s knowledge of and attitudes toward PCa screening, particularly their awareness of the associated risks, potential benefits, and relevant risk factors, are warranted. Such research will be instrumental in informing the development and implementation of targeted educational initiatives for PCa screening. These efforts will enhance the effectiveness of screening practices and improve physician–patient communication, ultimately leading to better health outcomes through informed decision-making and risk-stratified screening approaches.

Ethical Statement

The study protocol was approved by the National Cancer Center Institutional Review Board of Korea (approval number: NCC20220356). All participants consented to participate in the survey for public benefit.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the analysis: Nguyen GV, Kang E, Suh M, Jun JK, Choi KS.

Collected the data: Lee HJ, Kang E.

Contributed data or analysis tools: Lee HJ, Kang E, Suh M, Jun JK, Choi KS.

Performed the analysis: Nguyen GV, Lee K.

Wrote the paper: Choi KS.

Conflict of Interest

Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

Funding

This study was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research and Control from the National Cancer Center of Korea (#2210772).

Fig. 1.
Correlation between prostate cancer screening rate and colorectal cancer screening rate. Each dot represents a specific age.
crt-2024-879f1.jpg
Table 1.
Characteristics of participants based on prostate cancer screening (n=1,784)
Characteristic Total Ever underwent prostate cancer screening
 p-valuea)
Unweighted
 Weighted
No Yes Yes
Total 1,784 (100) 1,451 (81.3) 333 (18.7) 332 (18.6)
Age group (yr)
 40-49 549 (30.8) 514 (93.6) 35 (6.4) 35 (6.4) < 0.001
 50-59 589 (33.0) 491 (83.4) 98 (16.6) 98 (16.6)
 60-69 502 (28.1) 363 (72.3) 139 (27.7) 139 (27.7)
 70-74 144 (8.1) 83 (57.6) 61 (42.4) 60 (42.3)
Residential area
 Metropolitan 740 (41.5) 601 (81.2) 139 (18.8) 139 (18.7) 0.445
 Urban 809 (45.3) 652 (80.6) 157 (19.4) 157 (19.4)
 Rural 235 (13.2) 198 (84.3) 37 (15.7) 37 (15.7)
Marital status
 With a spouse 1,624 (91.0) 1,308 (80.5) 316 (19.5) 315 (19.4) 0.006
 Without spouse 160 (9.0) 143 (89.4) 17 (10.6) 17 (10.5)
Education level
 Secondary school graduate or lower 139 (7.8) 106 (76.3) 33 (23.7) 33 (23.6) 0.011
 High school graduate 839 (47.0) 666 (79.4) 173 (20.6) 173 (20.6)
 University graduate or higher 806 (45.2) 679 (84.2) 127 (15.8) 127 (15.8)
Monthly household income (ten thousand won)
 ≤ 300 509 (28.5) 391 (76.8) 118 (23.2) 118 (23.2) 0.006
 300-449 956 (53.6) 790 (82.6) 166 (17.4) 166 (17.3)
 ≥ 450 319 (17.9) 270 (84.6) 49 (15.4) 49 (15.3)
Private insurance
 Yes 1,603 (89.8) 1,308 (81.6) 295 (18.4) 294 (18.4) 0.396
 No 181 (10.2) 143 (79.0) 38 (21.0) 38 (20.8)
Self-reported health status
 Good 1,163 (65.2) 1,005 (86.4) 158 (13.6) 158 (13.6) < 0.001
 Average 572 (32.1) 419 (73.3) 153 (26.7) 153 (26.7)
 Poor 49 (2.7) 27 (55.1) 22 (44.9) 22 (44.8)
Smoking status
 Non-smoker 452 (25.3) 384 (85.0) 68 (15.0) 68 (15.0) 0.001
 Former smoker 540 (30.3) 412 (76.3) 128 (23.7) 127 (23.6)
 Current smoker 792 (44.4) 655 (82.7) 137 (17.3) 137 (17.3)
Alcohol usage in the last 12 months
 Yes 1,592 (89.2) 1,308 (82.2) 284 (17.8) 284 (17.8) 0.010
 No 192 (10.8) 143 (74.5) 49 (25.5) 49 (25.4)
BMI (kg/m2)
 ≤ 22.9 366 (20.5) 301 (82.2) 65 (17.8) 65 (17.7) 0.823
 23-24.9 896 (50.2) 724 (80.8) 172 (19.2) 172 (19.2)
 ≥ 25 522 (29.3) 426 (81.6) 96 (18.4) 96 (18.4)
Uptake of colorectal cancer screening
 Yes 1,533 (85.9) 1,210 (78.9) 323 (21.1) 322 (21.0) < 0.001
 No 251 (14.1) 241 (96.0) 10 (4.0) 10 (4.0)
Family history of any type of cancer
 Yes 373 (20.9) 278 (74.5) 95 (25.5) 95 (25.4) < 0.001
 No 1,411 (79.1) 1,173 (83.1) 238 (16.9) 238 (16.9)

Values are presented as number (%). BMI, body mass index.

a) p-values for unweighted prostate cancer screening rates.

Table 2.
Prostate cancer screening history and motivations
No. (%)a)
Ever had a PSA (n=1,784)
 Yes 126 (7.1)
Time of most recent test (n=333)
 Within 1 year (12 months) 41 (12.3)
 Within 2 years (13-24 months) 127 (38.1)
 More than 2 years (25 months or more) 165 (49.6)
Prostate screening method has received (n=492)b)
 TRUS 157 (31.9)
 PSA 126 (25.6)
 DRE 106 (21.5)
 Abdominal CT scan 86 (17.5)
 Prostate MRI 16 (3.3)
 Other 1 (0.2)
Have ever been recommended additional tests after receiving a prostate cancer screening (n=333)
 Yes 15 (4.5)
 No 318 (95.5)
Type of additional tests were recommended (n=17)b)
 PSA 6 (35.3)
 TRUS 8 (47.1)
 Prostate biopsy 1 (5.8)
 Abdominal CT or prostate MRI 2 (11.8)
Main motivation for getting screened among individuals with prior prostate screening (n=333)
 Included in a screening program package 81 (24.3)
 Brochure and promotion of screening center 20 (6.0)
 Online and TV promotion 47 (14.1)
 Recommendations from family/relatives/people around 106 (31.9)
 Recommendations from healthcare providers 60 (18.0)
 Symptoms of prostate cancer 19 (5.7)

CT, computed tomography; DRE, digital rectal examination; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PSA, prostate-specific antigen; TRUS, transrectal ultrasound.

a) Frequencies and proportions are not weighted,

b) Multiple responses are possible.

Table 3.
Associations between characteristics of participants and prostate cancer screening (n=1,784)
Characteristic OR (95% CI) aORa) (95% CI)
Age group (yr)
 40-49 1.00 1.00
 50-59 2.92 (1.94-4.38) 2.69 (1.75-4.12)
 60-69 5.60 (3.77-8.31) 5.77 (3.62-9.20)
 70-74 10.71 (6.65-17.27) 13.94 (7.52-25.86)
Residential area
 Metropolitan 1.24 (0.84-1.84) 1.23 (0.80-1.91)
 Urban 1.29 (0.88-1.91) 1.31 (0.85-2.01)
 Rural 1.00 1.00
Marital status
 With a spouse 2.06 (1.23-3.46) 1.87 (1.07-3.26)
 Without spouse 1.00 1.00
Education level
 Secondary school graduate or less 1.00 1.00
 High school graduate 0.84 (0.55-1.29) 1.57 (0.93-2.64)
 University graduate or higher 0.61 (0.39-0.94) 2.52 (1.39-4.56)
Monthly household income (ten thousand Korean won)
 ≤ 300 1.00 1.00
 300-449 0.70 (0.53-0.91) 1.34 (0.96-1.88)
 ≥ 450 0.60 (0.42-0.87) 1.16 (0.74-1.81)
Private insurance
 Yes 0.86 (0.59-1.25) 1.10 (0.71-1.71)
 No 1.00 1.00
Self-reported health status
 Good 1.00 1.00
 Average 2.32 (1.80-2.97) 1.46 (1.10-1.94)
 Poor 5.17 (2.87-9.31) 3.20 (1.67-6.15)
Smoking status
 Non-smokers 1.00 1.00
 Former smokers 1.75 (1.26-2.42) 1.38 (0.95-1.99)
 Current smokers 1.18 (0.86-1.63) 1.16 (0.81-1.67)
Alcohol usage in the last 12 months
 Yes 0.63 (0.45-0.90) 0.64 (0.42-0.96)
 No 1.00 1.00
BMI (kg/m2)
 ≤ 22.9 1.00 1.00
 23-24.9 1.11 (0.81-1.52) 1.11 (0.79-1.55)
 ≥ 25 1.05 (0.74-1.48) 1.00 (0.68-1.46)
Uptake of colorectal cancer screening
 Yes 6.42 (3.37-12.24) 4.01 (2.03-7.93)
 No 1.00 1.00
Family history of any type of cancer
 Yes 1.68 (1.28-2.20) 1.31 (0.97-1.77)
 No 1.00 1.00

aOR, adjusted odds ratio; BMI, body mass index; OR, crude odds ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval.

a) Odds ratio adjusted for age group, residential area, marital status, education level, monthly household income, private insurance, self-reported health status, smoking status, alcohol consumption in the last 12 months, BMI, colorectal cancer screening, and family history of any type of cancer.

  • 1. Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74:229–63. ArticlePubMed
  • 2. Han SH, Yuk HD. Epidemiology of urologic cancer in Korea: nationwide trends in the last 2 decades. J Urol Oncol. 2023;21:32–44. ArticlePDF
  • 3. Pak S, Jung KW, Park EH, Ko YH, Won YJ, Joung JY. Incidence and mortality projections for major cancers among Korean men until 2034, with a focus on prostate cancer. Investig Clin Urol. 2022;63:175–83. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 4. Boyle P, Severi G, Giles GG. The epidemiology of prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am. 2003;30:209–17. ArticlePubMed
  • 5. Bostwick DG, Burke HB, Djakiew D, Euling S, Ho SM, Landolph J, et al. Human prostate cancer risk factors. Cancer. 2004;101:2371–490. ArticlePubMed
  • 6. Rawla P. Epidemiology of prostate cancer. World J Oncol. 2019;10:63–89. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 7. U. S. Preventive Services Task Force; Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Owens DK, Bibbins-Domingo K, Caughey AB, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018;319:1901–13. ArticlePubMed
  • 8. Wei JT, Barocas D, Carlsson S, Coakley F, Eggener S, Etzioni R, et al. Early Detection of prostate cancer: AUA/SUO guideline part I: prostate cancer screening. J Urol. 2023;210:46–53. PubMedPMC
  • 9. Cui T, Kovell RC, Terlecki RP. Is it time to abandon the digital rectal examination? Lessons from the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial and peer-reviewed literature. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32:1663–9. ArticlePubMed
  • 10. Ilic D, Djulbegovic M, Jung JH, Hwang EC, Zhou Q, Cleves A, et al. Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2018;362:k3519.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 11. Martin RM, Donovan JL, Turner EL, Metcalfe C, Young GJ, Walsh EI, et al. Effect of a low-intensity PSA-based screening intervention on prostate cancer mortality: the CAP randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319:883–95. PubMedPMC
  • 12. Naji L, Randhawa H, Sohani Z, Dennis B, Lautenbach D, Kavanagh O, et al. Digital rectal examination for prostate cancer screening in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Fam Med. 2018;16:149–54. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 13. Nam R, Patel C, Milot L, Hird A, Wallis C, Macinnis P, et al. Prostate MRI versus PSA screening for prostate cancer detection (the MVP Study): a randomised clinical trial. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e059482ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 14. Wurnschimmel C, Chandrasekar T, Hahn L, Esen T, Shariat SF, Tilki D. MRI as a screening tool for prostate cancer: current evidence and future challenges. World J Urol. 2023;41:921–8. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 15. Lee EN, Park JH, Kang SG, Yun S, Sin KM, Kim KM. Factors affecting prostate cancer screening behavior. Asian Oncol Nurs. 2015;15:256–63. ArticlePDF
  • 16. Lee E, Park Y, Park J. Knowledge, health beliefs and screening status of prostate cancer among middle-aged and elderly men. Open J Nurs. 2016;6:672–87. ArticlePDF
  • 17. Suh M, Choi KS, Lee YY, Jun JK. Trends in cancer screening rates among Korean men and women: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey, 2004-2012. Cancer Res Treat. 2013;45:86–94. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 18. Hong S, Lee YY, Lee J, Kim Y, Choi KS, Jun JK, et al. Trends in cancer screening rates among Korean men and women: results of the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey, 2004-2018. Cancer Res Treat. 2021;53:330–8. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 19. Lee K, Lee YY, Suh M, Jun JK, Park B, Kim Y, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on cancer screening in South Korea. Sci Rep. 2022;12:11380.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 20. Pyun JH, Kang SH, Kim JY, Shin JE, Jeong IG, Kim JW, et al. Survey results on the perception of prostate-specific antigen and prostate cancer screening among the general public. Korean J Urol Oncol. 2020;18:40–6. ArticlePDF
  • 21. Ko YH, Roh KC, Kim BH. The national-wide incidence of prostate-specific antigen testing trend for a decade in Korea by age group. Investig Clin Urol. 2022;63:184–91. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 22. Guessous I, Cullati S, Fedewa SA, Burton-Jeangros C, Courvoisier DS, Manor O, et al. Prostate cancer screening in Switzerland: 20-year trends and socioeconomic disparities. Prev Med. 2016;82:83–91. ArticlePubMed
  • 23. Ilunga Tshiswaka D, Donley T, Okafor A, Memiah P, Mbizo J. Prostate and colorectal cancer screening uptake among US and foreign-born males: evidence from the 2015 NHIS survey. J Community Health. 2017;42:612–23. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 24. Morere JF, Touboul C, Lhomel C, Roupret M. Prostate cancer screening in France: results from the EDIFICE surveys. Prog Urol. 2020;30:332–8. PubMed
  • 25. Drazer MW, Huo D, Schonberg MA, Razmaria A, Eggener SE. Population-based patterns and predictors of prostate-specific antigen screening among older men in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1736–43. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 26. Li J, Zhao G, Hall IJ. Pre-screening discussions and prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer screening. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49:259–63. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 27. Tchir D, Farag M, Szafron M. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening rates and factors associated with screening in Eastern Canadian men: findings from cross-sectional survey data. Can Urol Assoc J. 2020;14:E319–27. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 28. Jung W, Cho IY, Jeon KH, Yeo Y, Jun JK, Suh M, et al. A web-based decision aid for informed prostate cancer screening: development and pilot evaluation. J Korean Med Sci. 2023;38:e360ArticlePubMedPMCPDF

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      • PubReader PubReader
      • ePub LinkePub Link
      • Cite
        CITE
        export Copy Download
        Close
        Download Citation
        Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
        Format:
        • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
        • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
        Include:
        • Citation for the content below
        Determinants of Prostate Cancer Screening in Korean Men: A Nationwide Study Using the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2023
        Cancer Res Treat. 2025;57(2):539-546.   Published online October 29, 2024
        DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2024.879
        Close
      • XML DownloadXML Download
      • 0
      Determinants of Prostate Cancer Screening in Korean Men: A Nationwide Study Using the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2023
      Image
      Fig. 1. Correlation between prostate cancer screening rate and colorectal cancer screening rate. Each dot represents a specific age.

      Fig. 1.

      Determinants of Prostate Cancer Screening in Korean Men: A Nationwide Study Using the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2023
      Characteristic Total Ever underwent prostate cancer screening
      		 p-valuea)
      Unweighted
      		 Weighted
      No Yes Yes
      Total 1,784 (100) 1,451 (81.3) 333 (18.7) 332 (18.6)
      Age group (yr)
       40-49 549 (30.8) 514 (93.6) 35 (6.4) 35 (6.4) < 0.001
       50-59 589 (33.0) 491 (83.4) 98 (16.6) 98 (16.6)
       60-69 502 (28.1) 363 (72.3) 139 (27.7) 139 (27.7)
       70-74 144 (8.1) 83 (57.6) 61 (42.4) 60 (42.3)
      Residential area
       Metropolitan 740 (41.5) 601 (81.2) 139 (18.8) 139 (18.7) 0.445
       Urban 809 (45.3) 652 (80.6) 157 (19.4) 157 (19.4)
       Rural 235 (13.2) 198 (84.3) 37 (15.7) 37 (15.7)
      Marital status
       With a spouse 1,624 (91.0) 1,308 (80.5) 316 (19.5) 315 (19.4) 0.006
       Without spouse 160 (9.0) 143 (89.4) 17 (10.6) 17 (10.5)
      Education level
       Secondary school graduate or lower 139 (7.8) 106 (76.3) 33 (23.7) 33 (23.6) 0.011
       High school graduate 839 (47.0) 666 (79.4) 173 (20.6) 173 (20.6)
       University graduate or higher 806 (45.2) 679 (84.2) 127 (15.8) 127 (15.8)
      Monthly household income (ten thousand won)
       ≤ 300 509 (28.5) 391 (76.8) 118 (23.2) 118 (23.2) 0.006
       300-449 956 (53.6) 790 (82.6) 166 (17.4) 166 (17.3)
       ≥ 450 319 (17.9) 270 (84.6) 49 (15.4) 49 (15.3)
      Private insurance
       Yes 1,603 (89.8) 1,308 (81.6) 295 (18.4) 294 (18.4) 0.396
       No 181 (10.2) 143 (79.0) 38 (21.0) 38 (20.8)
      Self-reported health status
       Good 1,163 (65.2) 1,005 (86.4) 158 (13.6) 158 (13.6) < 0.001
       Average 572 (32.1) 419 (73.3) 153 (26.7) 153 (26.7)
       Poor 49 (2.7) 27 (55.1) 22 (44.9) 22 (44.8)
      Smoking status
       Non-smoker 452 (25.3) 384 (85.0) 68 (15.0) 68 (15.0) 0.001
       Former smoker 540 (30.3) 412 (76.3) 128 (23.7) 127 (23.6)
       Current smoker 792 (44.4) 655 (82.7) 137 (17.3) 137 (17.3)
      Alcohol usage in the last 12 months
       Yes 1,592 (89.2) 1,308 (82.2) 284 (17.8) 284 (17.8) 0.010
       No 192 (10.8) 143 (74.5) 49 (25.5) 49 (25.4)
      BMI (kg/m2)
       ≤ 22.9 366 (20.5) 301 (82.2) 65 (17.8) 65 (17.7) 0.823
       23-24.9 896 (50.2) 724 (80.8) 172 (19.2) 172 (19.2)
       ≥ 25 522 (29.3) 426 (81.6) 96 (18.4) 96 (18.4)
      Uptake of colorectal cancer screening
       Yes 1,533 (85.9) 1,210 (78.9) 323 (21.1) 322 (21.0) < 0.001
       No 251 (14.1) 241 (96.0) 10 (4.0) 10 (4.0)
      Family history of any type of cancer
       Yes 373 (20.9) 278 (74.5) 95 (25.5) 95 (25.4) < 0.001
       No 1,411 (79.1) 1,173 (83.1) 238 (16.9) 238 (16.9)
      No. (%)a)
      Ever had a PSA (n=1,784)
       Yes 126 (7.1)
      Time of most recent test (n=333)
       Within 1 year (12 months) 41 (12.3)
       Within 2 years (13-24 months) 127 (38.1)
       More than 2 years (25 months or more) 165 (49.6)
      Prostate screening method has received (n=492)b)
       TRUS 157 (31.9)
       PSA 126 (25.6)
       DRE 106 (21.5)
       Abdominal CT scan 86 (17.5)
       Prostate MRI 16 (3.3)
       Other 1 (0.2)
      Have ever been recommended additional tests after receiving a prostate cancer screening (n=333)
       Yes 15 (4.5)
       No 318 (95.5)
      Type of additional tests were recommended (n=17)b)
       PSA 6 (35.3)
       TRUS 8 (47.1)
       Prostate biopsy 1 (5.8)
       Abdominal CT or prostate MRI 2 (11.8)
      Main motivation for getting screened among individuals with prior prostate screening (n=333)
       Included in a screening program package 81 (24.3)
       Brochure and promotion of screening center 20 (6.0)
       Online and TV promotion 47 (14.1)
       Recommendations from family/relatives/people around 106 (31.9)
       Recommendations from healthcare providers 60 (18.0)
       Symptoms of prostate cancer 19 (5.7)
      Characteristic OR (95% CI) aORa) (95% CI)
      Age group (yr)
       40-49 1.00 1.00
       50-59 2.92 (1.94-4.38) 2.69 (1.75-4.12)
       60-69 5.60 (3.77-8.31) 5.77 (3.62-9.20)
       70-74 10.71 (6.65-17.27) 13.94 (7.52-25.86)
      Residential area
       Metropolitan 1.24 (0.84-1.84) 1.23 (0.80-1.91)
       Urban 1.29 (0.88-1.91) 1.31 (0.85-2.01)
       Rural 1.00 1.00
      Marital status
       With a spouse 2.06 (1.23-3.46) 1.87 (1.07-3.26)
       Without spouse 1.00 1.00
      Education level
       Secondary school graduate or less 1.00 1.00
       High school graduate 0.84 (0.55-1.29) 1.57 (0.93-2.64)
       University graduate or higher 0.61 (0.39-0.94) 2.52 (1.39-4.56)
      Monthly household income (ten thousand Korean won)
       ≤ 300 1.00 1.00
       300-449 0.70 (0.53-0.91) 1.34 (0.96-1.88)
       ≥ 450 0.60 (0.42-0.87) 1.16 (0.74-1.81)
      Private insurance
       Yes 0.86 (0.59-1.25) 1.10 (0.71-1.71)
       No 1.00 1.00
      Self-reported health status
       Good 1.00 1.00
       Average 2.32 (1.80-2.97) 1.46 (1.10-1.94)
       Poor 5.17 (2.87-9.31) 3.20 (1.67-6.15)
      Smoking status
       Non-smokers 1.00 1.00
       Former smokers 1.75 (1.26-2.42) 1.38 (0.95-1.99)
       Current smokers 1.18 (0.86-1.63) 1.16 (0.81-1.67)
      Alcohol usage in the last 12 months
       Yes 0.63 (0.45-0.90) 0.64 (0.42-0.96)
       No 1.00 1.00
      BMI (kg/m2)
       ≤ 22.9 1.00 1.00
       23-24.9 1.11 (0.81-1.52) 1.11 (0.79-1.55)
       ≥ 25 1.05 (0.74-1.48) 1.00 (0.68-1.46)
      Uptake of colorectal cancer screening
       Yes 6.42 (3.37-12.24) 4.01 (2.03-7.93)
       No 1.00 1.00
      Family history of any type of cancer
       Yes 1.68 (1.28-2.20) 1.31 (0.97-1.77)
       No 1.00 1.00
      Table 1. Characteristics of participants based on prostate cancer screening (n=1,784)

      Values are presented as number (%). BMI, body mass index.

      p-values for unweighted prostate cancer screening rates.

      Table 2. Prostate cancer screening history and motivations

      CT, computed tomography; DRE, digital rectal examination; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PSA, prostate-specific antigen; TRUS, transrectal ultrasound.

      Frequencies and proportions are not weighted,

      Multiple responses are possible.

      Table 3. Associations between characteristics of participants and prostate cancer screening (n=1,784)

      aOR, adjusted odds ratio; BMI, body mass index; OR, crude odds ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval.

      Odds ratio adjusted for age group, residential area, marital status, education level, monthly household income, private insurance, self-reported health status, smoking status, alcohol consumption in the last 12 months, BMI, colorectal cancer screening, and family history of any type of cancer.

      Table 1.

      Table 2.

      Table 3.

      Cancer Res Treat : Cancer Research and Treatment
      © Korean Cancer Association.
      Close layer
      TOP