BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, few studies to date have examined racial differences in prostate cancer survival while controlling for socioeconomic status (SES). No such studies have examined this association in Texas, a large state with significant ethnic and racial diversity. The objective of this analysis was to determine whether racial disparities in survival for men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Texas from 1995 through 2002 remained after adjusting for SES, rural residence, and stage of disease. METHODS: A cohort of 87,449 men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer was identified from the Texas Cancer Registry. The SES measure was based on census tract data reflecting median household income, median home value, and percentages of men living below poverty, with a college education, and with a management or professional occupation. The 5-year survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard modeling was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for race and all-cause and disease-specific mortality. RESULTS: After adjusting for SES, age, stage of disease, tumor grade, year of diagnosis, and rural residence, both black and Hispanic men were more likely (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.70 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.58-1.83] and aHR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.02-1.20], respectively) to die of prostate cancer compared with white men. The pattern of survival disadvantage for black men held for those diagnosed with localized disease and advanced disease, and for those with an unknown stage of disease at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial racial disparities in prostate cancer survival were found for men in Texas. Future studies should incorporate treatment data as well as comorbid conditions because this information may explain noted survival disparities.
BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, few studies to date have examined racial differences in prostate cancer survival while controlling for socioeconomic status (SES). No such studies have examined this association in Texas, a large state with significant ethnic and racial diversity. The objective of this analysis was to determine whether racial disparities in survival for men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Texas from 1995 through 2002 remained after adjusting for SES, rural residence, and stage of disease. METHODS: A cohort of 87,449 men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer was identified from the Texas Cancer Registry. The SES measure was based on census tract data reflecting median household income, median home value, and percentages of men living below poverty, with a college education, and with a management or professional occupation. The 5-year survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard modeling was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for race and all-cause and disease-specific mortality. RESULTS: After adjusting for SES, age, stage of disease, tumor grade, year of diagnosis, and rural residence, both black and Hispanic men were more likely (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.70 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.58-1.83] and aHR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.02-1.20], respectively) to die of prostate cancer compared with white men. The pattern of survival disadvantage for black men held for those diagnosed with localized disease and advanced disease, and for those with an unknown stage of disease at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial racial disparities in prostate cancer survival were found for men in Texas. Future studies should incorporate treatment data as well as comorbid conditions because this information may explain noted survival disparities.
Authors: Kathryn E Richert-Boe; Sheila Weinmann; Jean A Shapiro; Benjamin A Rybicki; Shelley M Enger; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Noel S Weiss Journal: Urology Date: 2008-02-15 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: R M Hoffman; F D Gilliland; J W Eley; L C Harlan; R A Stephenson; J L Stanford; P C Albertson; A S Hamilton; W C Hunt; A L Potosky Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2001-03-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: G J Tarman; C J Kane; J W Moul; J B Thrasher; J P Foley; D Wilhite; R H Riffenburgh; C L Amling Journal: Urology Date: 2000-12-20 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Liqian Liu; Ann L Coker; Xianglin L Du; Janice N Cormier; Charles E Ford; Shenying Fang Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2008-06-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Susan Halabi; Sandipan Dutta; Catherine M Tangen; Mark Rosenthal; Daniel P Petrylak; Ian M Thompson; Kim N Chi; John C Araujo; Christopher Logothetis; David I Quinn; Karim Fizazi; Michael J Morris; Mario A Eisenberger; Daniel J George; Johann S De Bono; Celestia S Higano; Ian F Tannock; Eric J Small; William Kevin Kelly Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Janis Campbell; Krupa Gandhi; Anne Pate; Amanda Janitz; Amber Anderson; Robin Kinnard; Kai Ding Journal: J Okla State Med Assoc Date: 2016 Jul-Aug
Authors: Mohamed H Kamel; Milan Bimali; Mahmoud I Khalil; Ehab Eltahawy; LJoseph Su; Nabil K Bissada; Rodney Davis Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2019-03-06 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: David I Chu; Daniel M Moreira; Leah Gerber; Joseph C Presti; William J Aronson; Martha K Terris; Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; Stephen J Freedland Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-03-13 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Vincent L Freeman; Ana C Ricardo; Richard T Campbell; Richard E Barrett; Richard B Warnecke Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-07-22 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jennifer Cullen; Stephen A Brassell; Yongmei Chen; Christopher Porter; James L'esperance; Timothy Brand; David G McLeod Journal: Prostate Cancer Date: 2011-06-26