Prostate Cancer Screening Uptake in Transgender Women.

Importance: There is no consensus in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening guidelines regarding transgender women despite their known prostate cancer risk. Objective: To identify factors associated with recent (within the last 2 years) PSA screening in transgender women compared with cisgender men. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control study used data from the 2018 and 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) surveys to characterize rates of PSA screening for prostate cancer within the past 2 years and multivariable logistic regressions to characterize factors associated with recent screening among transgender women. The BRFSS program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention annually surveys over 400 000 US adults on behavioral risk factors, chronic illnesses, and use of preventive services. Respondents to the BRFSS who were cisgender men or transgender women 40 years or older and who had complete PSA testing responses and no prostate cancer history were included; 313 transgender women and 138 937 cisgender men met inclusion criteria. Matching was performed by age, race and ethnicity, educational level, employment, annual income, survey year, and cost barriers to care. Data were collected on November 2, 2022, and analyzed from November 2, 2022, to December 3, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates of and factors associated with recent PSA screening in transgender women. Results: Among the 1275 participants included in the matched cohort (255 transgender women and 1020 cisgender men; 570 [44.7%] aged 55-69 years), recent PSA screening rates among transgender women and cisgender men aged 55 to 69 were 22.2% (n = 26) and 36.3% (n = 165), respectively; among those 70 years and older, these rates were 41.8% (n = 26) and 40.2% (n = 98), respectively. In the matched cohort, transgender women had lower univariable odds of recent screening than cisgender men (odds ratio [OR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.46-0.92]; P = .02). In a hierarchical regression analysis adding time since the last primary care visit, effect size and significance were unchanged (OR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.42-0.87]; P = .007). After adding whether a clinician recommended a PSA test, there was no statistically significant difference in odds of screening between transgender women and cisgender men (OR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.45-1.27]; P = .21). The results were further attenuated when clinician-led discussions of PSA screening advantages and disadvantages were added (OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.47-1.31]; P = .32). In a multivariable logistic regression among transgender women, having a recommendation for PSA testing was the factor with the strongest association with recent screening (OR, 12.40 [95% CI, 4.47-37.80]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study of one of the largest cohorts of transgender women studied regarding PSA screening, the findings suggest that access to care or sociodemographic factors were not principal drivers of the screening differences between transgender women and cisgender men; rather, these data underscore the clinician's role in influencing PSA screening among transgender women.