BACKGROUND: African Americans have a higher incidence of prostate cancer and experience poorer outcomes compared with Caucasian Americans. Racial differences in care are well documented; however, few studies have characterized patients based on their prostate cancer risk category, which is required to differentiate appropriate from inappropriate guideline application. METHODS: The medical records of a population-based sample of 777 North Carolina men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were studied to assess the association among patient race, clinical factors, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline-concordant prostate cancer care. RESULTS: African Americans presented with significantly higher Gleason scores (P = .025) and prostate-specific antigen levels (P = .008) than did Caucasian Americans. However, when clinical T stage was considered as well, difference in overall risk category only approached statistical significance (P = .055). Across risk categories, African Americans were less likely to have surgery (58.1% versus 68.0%, P = .004) and more likely to have radiation (39.0% versus 27.4%, P = .001) compared with Caucasian Americans. However, 83.5% of men received guideline-concordant care within 1 year of diagnosis, which did not differ by race in multivariable analysis (odds ratio = 0.83; 95% confidence interval = 0.54-1.25). Greater patient-perceived access to care was associated with greater odds of receiving guideline-concordant care (odds ratio = 1.06; 95% confidence interval = 1.01-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: After controlling for NCCN risk category, there were no racial differences in receipt of guideline-concordant care. Efforts to improve prostate cancer treatment outcomes should focus on improving access to the health care system.
BACKGROUND: African Americans have a higher incidence of prostate cancer and experience poorer outcomes compared with Caucasian Americans. Racial differences in care are well documented; however, few studies have characterized patients based on their prostate cancer risk category, which is required to differentiate appropriate from inappropriate guideline application. METHODS: The medical records of a population-based sample of 777 North Carolina men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were studied to assess the association among patient race, clinical factors, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline-concordant prostate cancer care. RESULTS: African Americans presented with significantly higher Gleason scores (P = .025) and prostate-specific antigen levels (P = .008) than did Caucasian Americans. However, when clinical T stage was considered as well, difference in overall risk category only approached statistical significance (P = .055). Across risk categories, African Americans were less likely to have surgery (58.1% versus 68.0%, P = .004) and more likely to have radiation (39.0% versus 27.4%, P = .001) compared with Caucasian Americans. However, 83.5% of men received guideline-concordant care within 1 year of diagnosis, which did not differ by race in multivariable analysis (odds ratio = 0.83; 95% confidence interval = 0.54-1.25). Greater patient-perceived access to care was associated with greater odds of receiving guideline-concordant care (odds ratio = 1.06; 95% confidence interval = 1.01-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: After controlling for NCCN risk category, there were no racial differences in receipt of guideline-concordant care. Efforts to improve prostate cancer treatment outcomes should focus on improving access to the health care system.
Authors: April P Carson; Daniel L Howard; William R Carpenter; Yhenneko J Taylor; Sharon Peacock; Anna P Schenck; Paul A Godley Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: R R Bahnson; G E Hanks; R P Huben; P Kantoff; J M Kozlowski; M Kuettel; P H Lange; C Logothetis; J M Pow-Sang; M Roach; H Sandler; P T Scardino; R J Taylor; D A Urban; P C Walsh; T G Wilson Journal: Oncology (Williston Park) Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 2.990
Authors: Maria J Schymura; Amy R Kahn; Robert R German; Mei-Chin Hsieh; Rosemary D Cress; Jack L Finch; John P Fulton; Tiefu Shen; Erik Stuckart Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2010-04-19 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Anthony V D'Amico; Judith Manola; Marian Loffredo; Andrew A Renshaw; Alyssa DellaCroce; Philip W Kantoff Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-08-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Michaela A Dinan; Timothy J Robinson; Timothy M Zagar; Charles D Scales; Lesley H Curtis; Shelby D Reed; W Robert Lee; Kevin A Schulman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-02-11 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Adam B Murphy; Ramona Bhatia; Iman K Martin; David A Klein; Courtney M P Hollowell; Yaw Nyame; Elodi Dielubanza; Chad Achenbach; Rick A Kittles Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-07-25 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Debasish Sundi; Farzana A Faisal; Bruce J Trock; Patricia K Landis; Zhaoyong Feng; Ashley E Ross; H Ballentine Carter; Edward M Schaeffer Journal: Urology Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Emma H Allott; Lauren E Howard; William J Aronson; Martha K Terris; Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; Matthew R Cooperberg; Stephen J Freedland Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Ewan K Cobran; Ronald C Chen; Robert Overman; Anne-Marie Meyer; Tzy-Mey Kuo; Jonathon O'Brien; Til Sturmer; Nathan C Sheets; Gregg H Goldin; Dolly C Penn; Paul A Godley; William R Carpenter Journal: Am J Mens Health Date: 2015-02-05
Authors: Cristina Villares Zabalza; Meike Adam; Christoph Burdelski; Waldemar Wilczak; Corina Wittmer; Stefan Kraft; Till Krech; Stefan Steurer; Christina Koop; Claudia Hube-Magg; Markus Graefen; Hans Heinzer; Sarah Minner; Ronald Simon; Guido Sauter; Thorsten Schlomm; Maria Christina Tsourlakis Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2015-05-20