Kelvin A Moses1, Heather Orom2, Alicia Brasel2, Jacquelyne Gaddy3, Willie Underwood4. 1. Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. Electronic address: kelvin.a.moses@vanderbilt.edu. 2. Department of Community Health and Health Behavior, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY. 3. Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL. 4. Department of Community Health and Health Behavior, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Department of Urology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if there are variations in the receipt of treatment based on race and disease severity. Treatment variations in men with prostate cancer (PCa) among the various racial groups in the United States exist, which may be a source of potential disparity in outcome. METHODS: Utilizing Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results 17, we identified 327,636 men diagnosed with PCa from 2004 to 2011. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the association of receiving definitive treatment and race in the context of disease severity. RESULTS: African American (AA) and Hispanic men were less likely to receive treatment compared to White men (odds ratio [OR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71, 0.75, and OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92, 0.98, respectively). AA men had significantly lower OR of receiving definitive treatment within each D'Amico risk classification compared to White men, with decreasing odds of treatment for each increase in risk category (low-risk OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.78, 0.85; intermediate-risk OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.71, 0.77; and high-risk OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.58, 0.66). Hispanic men with intermediate-risk (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84, 0.94) or high-risk (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72, 0.85) disease had lower odds of receiving treatment compared to White men. Asian men had similar or greater odds of receiving treatment compared to White men within any Gleason or D'Amico classification. CONCLUSION: There is a significant disparity in the receipt of treatment for PCa among AA and Hispanic men compared to White men. The variations in receipt of treatment reveal an area of opportunity to develop risk-stratified approaches to treatment regardless of ethnic identity, which may address the poorer PCa-related outcomes in these populations.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if there are variations in the receipt of treatment based on race and disease severity. Treatment variations in men with prostate cancer (PCa) among the various racial groups in the United States exist, which may be a source of potential disparity in outcome. METHODS: Utilizing Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results 17, we identified 327,636 men diagnosed with PCa from 2004 to 2011. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the association of receiving definitive treatment and race in the context of disease severity. RESULTS: African American (AA) and Hispanic men were less likely to receive treatment compared to White men (odds ratio [OR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71, 0.75, and OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92, 0.98, respectively). AA men had significantly lower OR of receiving definitive treatment within each D'Amico risk classification compared to White men, with decreasing odds of treatment for each increase in risk category (low-risk OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.78, 0.85; intermediate-risk OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.71, 0.77; and high-risk OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.58, 0.66). Hispanic men with intermediate-risk (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84, 0.94) or high-risk (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72, 0.85) disease had lower odds of receiving treatment compared to White men. Asian men had similar or greater odds of receiving treatment compared to White men within any Gleason or D'Amico classification. CONCLUSION: There is a significant disparity in the receipt of treatment for PCa among AA and Hispanic men compared to White men. The variations in receipt of treatment reveal an area of opportunity to develop risk-stratified approaches to treatment regardless of ethnic identity, which may address the poorer PCa-related outcomes in these populations.
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: M J Resnick; D J Canter; T J Guzzo; B M Brucker; M Bergey; S S Sonnad; A J Wein; S B Malkowicz Journal: Urology Date: 2008-12-18 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Steven B Zeliadt; Scott D Ramsey; David F Penson; Ingrid J Hall; Donatus U Ekwueme; Leonard Stroud; Judith W Lee Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Scarlett S Lin; Christina A Clarke; Angela W Prehn; Sally L Glaser; Dee W West; Cynthia D O'Malley Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Debasish Sundi; Ashley E Ross; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; H Ballentine Carter; Edward M Schaeffer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-06-17 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Brittaney-Belle E Gordon; Ramsankar Basak; William R Carpenter; Deborah Usinger; Paul A Godley; Ronald C Chen Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Maria I Carlo; Veda N Giri; Channing J Paller; Wassim Abida; Joshi J Alumkal; Tomasz M Beer; Himisha Beltran; Daniel J George; Elisabeth I Heath; Celestia S Higano; Rana R McKay; Alicia K Morgans; Akash Patnaik; Charles J Ryan; Edward M Schaeffer; Walter M Stadler; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Noah D Kauff; Jacob Vinson; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Heather H Cheng Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2018-08-16
Authors: Randy A Vince; Nicholas W Eyrich; Brandon A Mahal; Kristian Stensland; Edward M Schaeffer; Daniel E Spratt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S Halabi; S Dutta; C M Tangen; M Rosenthal; D P Petrylak; I M Thompson; K N Chi; J S De Bono; J C Araujo; C Logothetis; M A Eisenberger; D I Quinn; K Fizazi; M J Morris; C S Higano; I F Tannock; E J Small; W K Kelly Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2020-04-11 Impact factor: 32.976