OBJECTIVES: To use self-assigned ethnicity to examine patterns of incidence, stage, treatment and survival in patients with prostate cancer in South-east England. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data on 36 961 men resident in South-east England and diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1998 and 2003 were extracted from the Thames Cancer Registry. Ethnicity information was obtained from the Hospital Episode Statistics dataset, and matched to the cancer records. The ethnic groups examined were White (19 688), Black (1422) and Indian/Pakistani (397). Age-standardized incidence rate ratios were calculated overall and for narrower age groups, with White men as the baseline group. Logistic regression was used to assess whether patients had a stage of disease recorded at diagnosis, if so whether it was metastatic, and to examine treatment received. To assess overall and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), Cox regression models were fitted, adjusting sequentially for age, socioeconomic status, treatment received and stage of disease at diagnosis. RESULTS: Indian/Pakistani men had a lower age-standardized rate than White men (rate ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.63-0.75), while Black men had a higher rate ratio (2.51, 2.30-2.73). There was no difference in the proportion of men diagnosed with metastatic disease in each ethnic group. There was variation in recorded surgery and hormone treatment. Indian/Pakistani men had better PCSS than White men (fully adjusted hazard ratio 0.76, P = 0.024). There was no difference in PCSS between Black and White men (hazard ratio 0.93, P = 0.238). CONCLUSIONS: Black men had the highest incidence of prostate cancer, followed by White, then Indian/Pakistani men. The relative excess of prostate cancer in Black vs White men was strongly age-dependent. Despite differences in recorded treatment, Indian/Pakistani men had better overall survival and PCSS. Black men also had better overall survival, and their PCSS was similar to that of White men. This might be due to access to the publicly funded National Health Service in the UK.
OBJECTIVES: To use self-assigned ethnicity to examine patterns of incidence, stage, treatment and survival in patients with prostate cancer in South-east England. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data on 36 961 men resident in South-east England and diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1998 and 2003 were extracted from the Thames Cancer Registry. Ethnicity information was obtained from the Hospital Episode Statistics dataset, and matched to the cancer records. The ethnic groups examined were White (19 688), Black (1422) and Indian/Pakistani (397). Age-standardized incidence rate ratios were calculated overall and for narrower age groups, with White men as the baseline group. Logistic regression was used to assess whether patients had a stage of disease recorded at diagnosis, if so whether it was metastatic, and to examine treatment received. To assess overall and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), Cox regression models were fitted, adjusting sequentially for age, socioeconomic status, treatment received and stage of disease at diagnosis. RESULTS: Indian/Pakistani men had a lower age-standardized rate than White men (rate ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.63-0.75), while Black men had a higher rate ratio (2.51, 2.30-2.73). There was no difference in the proportion of men diagnosed with metastatic disease in each ethnic group. There was variation in recorded surgery and hormone treatment. Indian/Pakistani men had better PCSS than White men (fully adjusted hazard ratio 0.76, P = 0.024). There was no difference in PCSS between Black and White men (hazard ratio 0.93, P = 0.238). CONCLUSIONS: Black men had the highest incidence of prostate cancer, followed by White, then Indian/Pakistani men. The relative excess of prostate cancer in Black vs White men was strongly age-dependent. Despite differences in recorded treatment, Indian/Pakistani men had better overall survival and PCSS. Black men also had better overall survival, and their PCSS was similar to that of White men. This might be due to access to the publicly funded National Health Service in the UK.
Authors: Tisheeka Graham-Steed; Edward Uchio; Carolyn K Wells; Mihaela Aslan; John Ko; John Concato Journal: Am J Med Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Gulnaz Iqbal; Mark Rd Johnson; Ala Szczepura; Sue Wilson; Anil Gumber; Janet A Dunn Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-03-27 Impact factor: 3.295