OBJECTIVE: To compare clinicopathologic features and survival outcomes for men 50 years of age in relation to other age groups stratified by race to further define prostate cancer (CaP) in young men. Controversy exists regarding the appropriate age to undergo CaP screening, outcomes for early intervention, and whether there is unique age-associated tumor biology. We compared clinicopathologic features and survival outcomes for men <50 years of age in relation to other age groups stratified by race to further define CaP in young men. METHODS: A multi-institutional review of 12,081 records of patients diagnosed with CaP from 1989-2009 was conducted. Patients were stratified by age group, race, and decade of treatment. Demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics were compared across age groups using chi-square tests and analysis of variance. The primary study endpoints, time to biochemical recurrence and all-cause mortality, were compared across age groups using Kaplan-Meier estimation and univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis. RESULTS: Only 4.5% of the study sample was <50 years of age. A higher percentage of African Americans diagnosed were <50 compared with Caucasians (8.3% vs 3.3%, P<.0001). Positive family history was more prevalent in the <50 cohort (36.1% vs 22.0%, P<.0001). Despite these findings, both racial subgroups for men<50 years of age demonstrated improved clinicopathologic features than other age quartiles. Furthermore, both Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard analysis demonstrated that the <50 cohort had a lower incidence of biochemical recurrence and greater overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Race and family history appear to play a significant role in the incidence of CaP in younger men. Younger age at diagnosis is associated with more favorable outcomes and indicates that population-based screening at younger ages could potentially lead to improved survival for high-risk groups. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVE: To compare clinicopathologic features and survival outcomes for men 50 years of age in relation to other age groups stratified by race to further define prostate cancer (CaP) in young men. Controversy exists regarding the appropriate age to undergo CaP screening, outcomes for early intervention, and whether there is unique age-associated tumor biology. We compared clinicopathologic features and survival outcomes for men <50 years of age in relation to other age groups stratified by race to further define CaP in young men. METHODS: A multi-institutional review of 12,081 records of patients diagnosed with CaP from 1989-2009 was conducted. Patients were stratified by age group, race, and decade of treatment. Demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics were compared across age groups using chi-square tests and analysis of variance. The primary study endpoints, time to biochemical recurrence and all-cause mortality, were compared across age groups using Kaplan-Meier estimation and univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis. RESULTS: Only 4.5% of the study sample was <50 years of age. A higher percentage of African Americans diagnosed were <50 compared with Caucasians (8.3% vs 3.3%, P<.0001). Positive family history was more prevalent in the <50 cohort (36.1% vs 22.0%, P<.0001). Despite these findings, both racial subgroups for men<50 years of age demonstrated improved clinicopathologic features than other age quartiles. Furthermore, both Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard analysis demonstrated that the <50 cohort had a lower incidence of biochemical recurrence and greater overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Race and family history appear to play a significant role in the incidence of CaP in younger men. Younger age at diagnosis is associated with more favorable outcomes and indicates that population-based screening at younger ages could potentially lead to improved survival for high-risk groups. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Jeri Kim; James Ebertowski; Matthew Janiga; Jorge Arzola; Gayle Gillespie; Michael Fountain; Douglas Soderdahl; Edith Canby-Hagino; Sally Elsamanoudi; Jennifer Gurski; John W Davis; Patricia A Parker; Douglas D Boyd Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Aruna V Sarma; Jennifer L St Sauver; Debra J Jacobson; Michaela E McGree; George G Klee; Michael M Lieber; Cynthia J Girman; John M Hollingsworth; Steven J Jacobsen Journal: Urology Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: N J Kinnear; G Kichenadasse; S Plagakis; M E O'Callaghan; T Kopsaftis; S Walsh; D Foreman Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 4.226