M I Gökce1,2, D Sundi1, E Schaeffer3, C Pettaway1. 1. Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 2. Department of Urology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. 3. Department of Urology, The Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Certain patients presenting with either low or very-low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) can represent a therapeutic dilemma for physicians. The oncologic outcomes of active surveillance (AS) for men with very-low-risk PCa are overall excellent. However, there are concerns about AS related to the potential for upgrading or upstaging. The African American (AA) population is under-represented in studies evaluating AS outcomes and this is particularly important because of the unique epidemiology of PCa in AA men. METHODS: A literature review through the Medline database published from 1990 until August 2015 was performed to identify studies reporting outcomes of the AA population with low-risk PCa that underwent either AS or treatment. An additional search for studies on genetic mechanisms involved in development of PCa in AA men was also performed. RESULTS: Eleven studies on pathologic results of AA men who would qualify for AS were identified and in eight of these studies AA race was found to be associated with adverse pathological outcomes such as positive surgical margins, upgrading or upstaging. The other three studies reported no significance in these parameters with respect to race. Five more studies reported outcomes of AS in AA men with different study end points. AA men were mainly found to have a higher rate of disease reclassification subsequent to active treatment. The studies on genetic mechanisms also identified different genetic alterations in the AA population. CONCLUSIONS: AA men with clinically defined low-risk PCa may have either a higher grade or volume of cancer that was not detected on routine evaluation. Therefore, AS among such patients should be approached with caution. We recommend discussing such risks with AA patients with an acknowledgement that existing favorable outcomes noted in largely Caucasian populations may not be applicable to AA patients. We propose a modified evaluation plan for AA patients that includes an early confirmatory biopsy preceded by an magnetic resonance imaging to optimally detect occult cancer foci.
BACKGROUND: Certain patients presenting with either low or very-low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) can represent a therapeutic dilemma for physicians. The oncologic outcomes of active surveillance (AS) for men with very-low-risk PCa are overall excellent. However, there are concerns about AS related to the potential for upgrading or upstaging. The African American (AA) population is under-represented in studies evaluating AS outcomes and this is particularly important because of the unique epidemiology of PCa in AA men. METHODS: A literature review through the Medline database published from 1990 until August 2015 was performed to identify studies reporting outcomes of the AA population with low-risk PCa that underwent either AS or treatment. An additional search for studies on genetic mechanisms involved in development of PCa in AA men was also performed. RESULTS: Eleven studies on pathologic results of AA men who would qualify for AS were identified and in eight of these studies AA race was found to be associated with adverse pathological outcomes such as positive surgical margins, upgrading or upstaging. The other three studies reported no significance in these parameters with respect to race. Five more studies reported outcomes of AS in AA men with different study end points. AA men were mainly found to have a higher rate of disease reclassification subsequent to active treatment. The studies on genetic mechanisms also identified different genetic alterations in the AA population. CONCLUSIONS: AA men with clinically defined low-risk PCa may have either a higher grade or volume of cancer that was not detected on routine evaluation. Therefore, AS among such patients should be approached with caution. We recommend discussing such risks with AA patients with an acknowledgement that existing favorable outcomes noted in largely Caucasian populations may not be applicable to AA patients. We propose a modified evaluation plan for AA patients that includes an early confirmatory biopsy preceded by an magnetic resonance imaging to optimally detect occult cancer foci.
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: Matthew Truong; Jon A Slezak; Chee Paul Lin; Viacheslav Iremashvili; Martins Sado; Aria A Razmaria; Glen Leverson; Mark S Soloway; Scott E Eggener; E Jason Abel; Tracy M Downs; David F Jarrard Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-09-04 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: Marc A Dall'Era; Peter C Albertsen; Christopher Bangma; Peter R Carroll; H Ballentine Carter; Matthew R Cooperberg; Stephen J Freedland; Laurence H Klotz; Christopher Parker; Mark S Soloway Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Brian D Odom; M C Mir; Scott Hughes; Cedric Senechal; Alexis Santy; Remi Eyraud; Andrew J Stephenson; Kelly Ylitalo; Ranko Miocinovic Journal: Urology Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 2.649
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: Yun-Sok Ha; Amirali Salmasi; Michael Karellas; Eric A Singer; Jeong Hyun Kim; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Wun-Jae Kim; Dong Hyeon Lee; Isaac Yi Kim Journal: Urology Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Rishi Deka; P Travis Courtney; J Kellogg Parsons; Tyler J Nelson; Vinit Nalawade; Elaine Luterstein; Daniel R Cherry; Daniel R Simpson; Arno J Mundt; James D Murphy; Anthony V D'Amico; Christopher J Kane; Maria Elena Martinez; Brent S Rose Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-11-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Hari T Vigneswaran; Luke Mittelstaedt; Alessio Crippa; Martin Eklund; Adriana Vidal; Stephen J Freedland; Michael R Abern Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Lauren Folgosa Cooley; Adaeze A Emeka; Travis J Meyers; Phillip R Cooper; Daniel W Lin; Antonio Finelli; James A Eastham; Christopher J Logothetis; Leonard S Marks; Danny Vesprini; S Larry Goldenberg; Celestia S Higano; Christian P Pavlovich; June M Chan; Todd M Morgan; Eric A Klein; Daniel A Barocas; Stacy Loeb; Brian T Helfand; Denise M Scholtens; John S Witte; William J Catalona Journal: J Urol Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 7.600
Authors: Jonathan B Bloom; Amir H Lebastchi; Samuel A Gold; Graham R Hale; Thomas Sanford; Sherif Mehralivand; Michael Ahdoot; Kareem N Rayn; Marcin Czarniecki; Clayton Smith; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Howard L Parnes; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: BJU Int Date: 2019-06-26 Impact factor: 5.969
Authors: Jeannette M Schenk; Lisa F Newcomb; Yingye Zheng; Anna V Faino; Kehao Zhu; Yaw A Nyame; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg; Atreya Dash; Christopher P Filson; Martin E Gleave; Michael Liss; Francis M Martin; Todd M Morgan; Peter S Nelson; Ian M Thompson; Andrew A Wagner; Daniel W Lin Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-10-25 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Richard M Hoffman; Sarah L Mott; Bradley D McDowell; Sonia T Anand; Kenneth G Nepple Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2021-06-09 Impact factor: 5.455