K A Moses1, Z Zhao2, Y Bi2, J Acquaye3, A Holmes3, W J Blot4, J H Fowke1,4. 1. Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 3. Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Variation in PSA screening is a potential source of disparity in prostate cancer survival, particularly among underserved populations. We sought to examine the impact of race and socioeconomic status (SES) on receipt of PSA testing among low-income men. METHODS: Black (n=22 167) and White (n=9588) men aged ⩾40 years completed a baseline questionnaire from 2002 to 2009 as part of the Southern Community Cohort Study. Men reported whether they had ever received PSA testing and had testing within the prior 12 months. To evaluate the associations between SES, race and receipt of PSA testing, odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from the multivariable logistic models where age, household income, insurance status, marital status, body mass index and educational level were adjusted. RESULTS: Black men were younger, had a lower income, less attained education and were more likely to be unmarried and uninsured (all P<0.001). Percentages of men having ever received PSA testing rose from <40% under the age of 45 years to ~90% above the age of 65 years, with Whites >50 more likely than Blacks to have received testing. Lower SES was significantly associated with less receipt of PSA testing in both groups. After adjustment for SES, White men had significantly lower odds of PSA testing (OR 0.81; 95% CI: 0.76-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Greater PSA testing among White than Black men over the age of 50 years in this low-income population appears to be mainly a consequence of SES. Strategies for PSA screening may benefit from tailoring to the social circumstances of the men being screened.
BACKGROUND: Variation in PSA screening is a potential source of disparity in prostate cancer survival, particularly among underserved populations. We sought to examine the impact of race and socioeconomic status (SES) on receipt of PSA testing among low-income men. METHODS: Black (n=22 167) and White (n=9588) men aged ⩾40 years completed a baseline questionnaire from 2002 to 2009 as part of the Southern Community Cohort Study. Men reported whether they had ever received PSA testing and had testing within the prior 12 months. To evaluate the associations between SES, race and receipt of PSA testing, odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from the multivariable logistic models where age, household income, insurance status, marital status, body mass index and educational level were adjusted. RESULTS: Black men were younger, had a lower income, less attained education and were more likely to be unmarried and uninsured (all P<0.001). Percentages of men having ever received PSA testing rose from <40% under the age of 45 years to ~90% above the age of 65 years, with Whites >50 more likely than Blacks to have received testing. Lower SES was significantly associated with less receipt of PSA testing in both groups. After adjustment for SES, White men had significantly lower odds of PSA testing (OR 0.81; 95% CI: 0.76-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Greater PSA testing among White than Black men over the age of 50 years in this low-income population appears to be mainly a consequence of SES. Strategies for PSA screening may benefit from tailoring to the social circumstances of the men being screened.
Authors: Mark H Kawachi; Robert R Bahnson; Michael Barry; J Erik Busby; Peter R Carroll; H Ballentine Carter; William J Catalona; Michael S Cookson; Jonathan I Epstein; Ruth B Etzioni; Veda N Giri; George P Hemstreet; Richard J Howe; Paul H Lange; Hans Lilja; Kevin R Loughlin; James Mohler; Judd Moul; Robert B Nadler; Stephen G Patterson; Joseph C Presti; Antoinette M Stroup; Robert Wake; John T Wei Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Lisa B Signorello; Margaret K Hargreaves; Mark D Steinwandel; Wei Zheng; Qiuyin Cai; David G Schlundt; Maciej S Buchowski; Carolyne W Arnold; Joseph K McLaughlin; William J Blot Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Martin G Sanda; Dennis L Broyles; Sanghyuk S Shin; Chris H Bangma; John T Wei; Alan W Partin; George G Klee; Kevin M Slawin; Leonard S Marks; Ron H N van Schaik; Daniel W Chan; Lori J Sokoll; Amabelle B Cruz; Isaac A Mizrahi; William J Catalona Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michael W Drazer; Sandip M Prasad; Dezheng Huo; Mara A Schonberg; William Dale; Russell Z Szmulewitz; Scott E Eggener Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jesse D Sammon; Deepansh Dalela; Firas Abdollah; Toni K Choueiri; Paul K Han; Moritz Hansen; Paul L Nguyen; Akshay Sood; Mani Menon; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Alexis R Gaines; Elizabeth L Turner; Patricia G Moorman; Stephen J Freedland; Christopher J Keto; Megan E McPhail; Delores J Grant; Adriana C Vidal; Cathrine Hoyo Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2014-05-31 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Wei Tang; Jay H Fowke; Lauren M Hurwitz; Mark Steinwandel; William J Blot; Stefan Ambs Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Kevin H Kensler; Claire H Pernar; Brandon A Mahal; Paul L Nguyen; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Adam S Kibel; Timothy R Rebbeck Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Nima Aghdam; Mary McGunigal; Haijun Wang; Michael C Repka; Mihriye Mete; Stephen Fernandez; Chiranjeev Dash; Waddah B Al-Refaie; Keith R Unger Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-06-08 Impact factor: 4.452