PURPOSE: Understanding the potential consequences of racial differences in prostate cancer outcomes, from survival rates to quality of life considerations, is important for the clinician and patient. We examined demographic, clinical and health related quality of life data comparing black with white patients just after treatment of prostate cancer and 1 year later. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data on 1,178 patients who were newly diagnosed with prostate cancer in the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor, a national observational database of men recruited from 35 community and academic urology practices throughout the United States. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics and validated health related quality of life questionnaires were reviewed. A total of 958 white and 161 black patients with prostate cancer who completed at least 2 surveys were compared. RESULTS: The black patients were younger, and had lower income and education levels than white patients. Controlling for age, education and income differences, black patients generally had worse clinical characteristics at presentation and lower baseline health related quality of life data scores in most generic and disease specific categories at treatment. The most notable exception was sexual function, which was the only score that was higher in black patients at treatment. With time, health related quality of life improved in both groups but black patients had slower rates of improvement for general health, bodily pain, physical function, role function, disease worry and bowel function. They continued to have higher sexual function. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences exist in clinical presentation, sociodemographic characteristics, and health related quality of life between black and white men with prostate cancer. These health related quality of life differences remain after treatment. Physicians should not assume that outcomes in black men would be similar to other patients.
PURPOSE: Understanding the potential consequences of racial differences in prostate cancer outcomes, from survival rates to quality of life considerations, is important for the clinician and patient. We examined demographic, clinical and health related quality of life data comparing black with white patients just after treatment of prostate cancer and 1 year later. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data on 1,178 patients who were newly diagnosed with prostate cancer in the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor, a national observational database of men recruited from 35 community and academic urology practices throughout the United States. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics and validated health related quality of life questionnaires were reviewed. A total of 958 white and 161 black patients with prostate cancer who completed at least 2 surveys were compared. RESULTS: The black patients were younger, and had lower income and education levels than white patients. Controlling for age, education and income differences, black patients generally had worse clinical characteristics at presentation and lower baseline health related quality of life data scores in most generic and disease specific categories at treatment. The most notable exception was sexual function, which was the only score that was higher in black patients at treatment. With time, health related quality of life improved in both groups but black patients had slower rates of improvement for general health, bodily pain, physical function, role function, disease worry and bowel function. They continued to have higher sexual function. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences exist in clinical presentation, sociodemographic characteristics, and health related quality of life between black and white men with prostate cancer. These health related quality of life differences remain after treatment. Physicians should not assume that outcomes in black men would be similar to other patients.
Authors: Caroleen W Quach; Michelle M Langer; Ronald C Chen; David Thissen; Deborah S Usinger; Marc A Emerson; Bryce B Reeve Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-05-30 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Andrew G Matthew; Shabbir M H Alibhai; Tal Davidson; Kristen L Currie; Haiyan Jiang; Murray Krahn; Neil E Fleshner; Robin Kalnin; Alyssa S Louis; B Joyce Davison; John Trachtenberg Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-03-09 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Mark D Tyson; JoAnn Alvarez; Tatsuki Koyama; Karen E Hoffman; Matthew J Resnick; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Matthew R Cooperberg; Michael Goodman; Sheldon Greenfield; Ann S Hamilton; Mia Hashibe; Lisa E Paddock; Antoinette Stroup; Vivien W Chen; David F Penson; Daniel A Barocas Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Chanita H Halbert; James Coyne; Benita Weathers; Brandon Mahler; Ernestine Delmoor; David Vaughn; S Bruce Malkowicz; David Lee; Andrea Troxel Journal: Urology Date: 2010-03-07 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Frank J Penedo; Michael H Antoni; Patricia I Moreno; Lara Traeger; Dolores Perdomo; Jason Dahn; Gregory E Miller; Steve Cole; Julian Orjuela; Edgar Pizarro; Betina Yanez Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-07-09 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Laura C Bouchard; Betina Yanez; Jason R Dahn; Sarah C Flury; Kent T Perry; David C Mohr; Frank J Penedo Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Oxana G Palesh; Joseph A Roscoe; Karen M Mustian; Thomas Roth; Josée Savard; Sonia Ancoli-Israel; Charles Heckler; Jason Q Purnell; Michelle C Janelsins; Gary R Morrow Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-23 Impact factor: 44.544