BACKGROUND: Few studies of ethnicity and prostate cancer have included Latino men in analyses of baseline clinical characteristics, treatment selection, and disease-free survival (DFS). The present study examines the impact of Latino ethnicity on these parameters in a large, multiinstitutional database of men with prostate cancer. METHODS: We compared baseline disease characteristics and clinical outcomes for Latino (N = 138), non-Latino White (NLW, N = 5619), and African-American (AA, N = 608) men with localized prostate cancer by using chi-square and ANOVA for baseline variables and survival analysis to examine differences in time to recurrence. RESULTS: Latino men resembled AA men more than NLW on sociodemographic characteristics. AA men had higher Gleason scores and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at diagnosis than Latino or NLW men (both P < 0.01). 10% of both Latino and AA men presented with advanced disease (T3b/T4/N+/M+) versus 4% of NLW (P < 0.01). Latino men did not receive different treatments than NLW or AA men after controlling for clinical and demographic factors; however, AA men were more likely to receive external beam radiation (OR = 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.99-2.31) and hormone treatment (OR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.05-2.32) then NLW men. For prostatectomy patients, 3-year actuarial DFS rates were 83% for NLW men and 86% for Latino men versus 69% for AA men (P < 0.01). After controlling for clinical and sociodemographic variables, AA men were somewhat more likely than NLW to experience disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP) (HR = 1.38, 95% CI = 0.98-1.94, P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Latinos are more similar to African Americans on sociodemographic characteristics but more similar to NLW on clinical presentation, treatments received, and DFS. Copyright 2006 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: Few studies of ethnicity and prostate cancer have included Latino men in analyses of baseline clinical characteristics, treatment selection, and disease-free survival (DFS). The present study examines the impact of Latino ethnicity on these parameters in a large, multiinstitutional database of men with prostate cancer. METHODS: We compared baseline disease characteristics and clinical outcomes for Latino (N = 138), non-Latino White (NLW, N = 5619), and African-American (AA, N = 608) men with localized prostate cancer by using chi-square and ANOVA for baseline variables and survival analysis to examine differences in time to recurrence. RESULTS: Latino men resembled AA men more than NLW on sociodemographic characteristics. AA men had higher Gleason scores and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at diagnosis than Latino or NLW men (both P < 0.01). 10% of both Latino and AA men presented with advanced disease (T3b/T4/N+/M+) versus 4% of NLW (P < 0.01). Latino men did not receive different treatments than NLW or AA men after controlling for clinical and demographic factors; however, AA men were more likely to receive external beam radiation (OR = 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.99-2.31) and hormone treatment (OR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.05-2.32) then NLW men. For prostatectomy patients, 3-year actuarial DFS rates were 83% for NLW men and 86% for Latino men versus 69% for AA men (P < 0.01). After controlling for clinical and sociodemographic variables, AA men were somewhat more likely than NLW to experience disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP) (HR = 1.38, 95% CI = 0.98-1.94, P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Latinos are more similar to African Americans on sociodemographic characteristics but more similar to NLW on clinical presentation, treatments received, and DFS. Copyright 2006 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Robert W Haile; Esther M John; A Joan Levine; Victoria K Cortessis; Jennifer B Unger; Melissa Gonzales; Elad Ziv; Patricia Thompson; Donna Spruijt-Metz; Katherine L Tucker; Jonine L Bernstein; Thomas E Rohan; Gloria Y F Ho; Melissa L Bondy; Maria Elena Martinez; Linda Cook; Mariana C Stern; Marcia Cruz Correa; Jonelle Wright; Seth J Schwartz; Lourdes Baezconde-Garbanati; Victoria Blinder; Patricia Miranda; Richard Hayes; George Friedman-Jiménez; Kristine R Monroe; Christopher A Haiman; Brian E Henderson; Duncan C Thomas; Paolo Boffetta Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2012-02
Authors: Nicholas M Donin; Stacy Loeb; Phillip R Cooper; Kimberly A Roehl; Nikola A Baumann; William J Catalona; Brian T Helfand Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Matthew R Cooperberg; Janet E Cowan; Joan F Hilton; Adam C Reese; Harras B Zaid; Sima P Porten; Katsuto Shinohara; Maxwell V Meng; Kirsten L Greene; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Daniel A Barocas; Darryl T Gray; Jay H Fowke; Nathaniel D Mercaldo; Jeffrey D Blume; Sam S Chang; Michael S Cookson; Joseph A Smith; David F Penson Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Charnita M Zeigler-Johnson; Hanna Rennert; R Devi Mittal; Mohamed Jalloh; Rajeev Sachdeva; S Bruce Malkowicz; Anil Mandhani; B Mittal; Serigne M Gueye; Timothy R Rebbeck Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: Daphne Y Lichtensztajn; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Weiva Sieh; Benjamin I Chung; Iona Cheng; James D Brooks Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Maria C Velasquez; Felix M Chinea; Deukwoo Kwon; Nachiketh Soodana Prakash; Marcelo P Barboza; Mark L Gonzalgo; Chad R Ritch; Alan Pollack; Dipen J Parekh; Sanoj Punnen Journal: Urology Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Melanie Mediavilla-Varela; Fabio J Pacheco; Frankis Almaguel; Jossymar Perez; Eva Sahakian; Tracy R Daniels; Lai Sum Leoh; Amelia Padilla; Nathan R Wall; Michael B Lilly; Marino De Leon; Carlos A Casiano Journal: Mol Cancer Date: 2009-08-28 Impact factor: 27.401