PURPOSE: Higher socioeconomic status (SES) men are at higher risk of prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis, an association commonly interpreted as a function of higher rates of prostate screening among higher SES men. However, the extent to which screening explains this association has not been well quantified. METHODS: Within a Detroit area cohort of 6,692 men followed up after a benign prostate procedure, a case-control study was conducted of 494 PCa cases and controls matched on age, race, duration of follow-up, and date of initial benign finding; 2000 Census data were used in a principal component analysis to derive a single factor, labeled the neighborhood SES index (NSESI), representing zip code-level SES. RESULTS: Among cases, higher SES was associated with a younger age at initial biopsy: -1.48 years (95 % CI, -2.32, -0.64) per unit NSESI. After adjustment for confounders and duration of follow-up, higher SES was associated with more PSA tests and DRE during follow-up; 9 % (95 % CI, 2, 16) and 8 % (95 % CI, 1, 15) more respectively, per unit NSESI. Higher SES was associated with a higher risk of PCa diagnosis during follow-up, multivariable adjusted OR = 1.26 per unit increase in NSESI (95 % CI, 1.04, 1.49). Further adjustment for screening frequency somewhat reduced the association between SES and PCa risk (OR = 1.19 per unit NSESI, 95 % CI, 0.98, 1.44). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in screening frequency only partially explained the association between higher zip code SES and PCa risk; other health care-related factors should also be considered as explanatory factors.
PURPOSE: Higher socioeconomic status (SES) men are at higher risk of prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis, an association commonly interpreted as a function of higher rates of prostate screening among higher SES men. However, the extent to which screening explains this association has not been well quantified. METHODS: Within a Detroit area cohort of 6,692 men followed up after a benign prostate procedure, a case-control study was conducted of 494 PCa cases and controls matched on age, race, duration of follow-up, and date of initial benign finding; 2000 Census data were used in a principal component analysis to derive a single factor, labeled the neighborhood SES index (NSESI), representing zip code-level SES. RESULTS: Among cases, higher SES was associated with a younger age at initial biopsy: -1.48 years (95 % CI, -2.32, -0.64) per unit NSESI. After adjustment for confounders and duration of follow-up, higher SES was associated with more PSA tests and DRE during follow-up; 9 % (95 % CI, 2, 16) and 8 % (95 % CI, 1, 15) more respectively, per unit NSESI. Higher SES was associated with a higher risk of PCa diagnosis during follow-up, multivariable adjusted OR = 1.26 per unit increase in NSESI (95 % CI, 1.04, 1.49). Further adjustment for screening frequency somewhat reduced the association between SES and PCa risk (OR = 1.19 per unit NSESI, 95 % CI, 0.98, 1.44). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in screening frequency only partially explained the association between higher zip code SES and PCa risk; other health care-related factors should also be considered as explanatory factors.
Authors: Benjamin A Spencer; Susan H Babey; David A Etzioni; Ninez A Ponce; E Richard Brown; Hongjian Yu; Neetu Chawla; Mark S Litwin Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Alan E Hubbard; Jennifer Ahern; Nancy L Fleischer; Mark Van der Laan; Sheri A Lippman; Nicholas Jewell; Tim Bruckner; William A Satariano Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Oleksandr N Kryvenko; Michelle Jankowski; Dhananjay A Chitale; Deliang Tang; Andrew Rundle; Sheri Trudeau; Benjamin A Rybicki Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2012-03-30 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Andrew Rundle; Sam Field; Yoosun Park; Lance Freeman; Christopher C Weiss; Kathryn Neckerman Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2008-10-25 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Ann C Klassen; Frank C Curriero; Jean Hee Hong; Chyvette Williams; Martin Kulldorff; Helen I Meissner; Anthony Alberg; Margaret Ensminger Journal: Prev Med Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Nancy Krieger; Jarvis T Chen; Pamela D Waterman; David H Rehkopf; S V Subramanian Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Jens Klein; Daniel Lüdecke; Kerstin Hofreuter-Gätgens; Margit Fisch; Markus Graefen; Olaf von dem Knesebeck Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Taehyun Roh; Charles F Lynch; Peter Weyer; Kai Wang; Kevin M Kelly; Gabriele Ludewig Journal: Environ Res Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Jamaica R M Robinson; Jennifer L Beebe-Dimmer; Ann G Schwartz; Julie J Ruterbusch; Tara E Baird; Stephanie S Pandolfi; Theresa A Hastert; James W Quinn; Andrew G Rundle Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: M May; C Gilfrich; P Spachmann; O Maurer; M K Dombrowski; H M Fritsche; M Wöhr; S Brookman-May; T Karl; M Schostak; M Burger; S Lebentrau Journal: Urologe A Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Angie Mae Rodday; Susan K Parsons; Frederick Snyder; Melissa A Simon; Adana A M Llanos; Victoria Warren-Mears; Donald Dudley; Ji-Hyun Lee; Steven R Patierno; Talar W Markossian; Mechelle Sanders; Elizabeth M Whitley; Karen M Freund Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Daniella Klebaner; P Travis Courtney; Isla P Garraway; John Einck; Abhishek Kumar; Maria Elena Martinez; Rana McKay; James D Murphy; Humberto Parada; Ajay Sandhu; Tyler Stewart; Kosj Yamoah; Brent S Rose Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 11.816