Maria C Velasquez1, Felix M Chinea2, Deukwoo Kwon3, Nachiketh Soodana Prakash1, Marcelo P Barboza1, Mark L Gonzalgo4, Chad R Ritch4, Alan Pollack2, Dipen J Parekh4, Sanoj Punnen5. 1. Department of Urology, University of Miami, Miami, FL. 2. Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, FL; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami, Miami, FL. 3. Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, FL. 4. Department of Urology, University of Miami, Miami, FL; Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, FL. 5. Department of Urology, University of Miami, Miami, FL; Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, FL. Electronic address: s.punnen@miami.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if recently found disparities in prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) among Mexican and Puerto Rican men remained true in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP), where the true grade and extent of cancer are known and can be accounted for. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men diagnosed with localized-regional prostate cancer who had undergone RP as primary treatment were identified (N = 180,794). Patients were divided into the following racial and ethnic groups: non-Hispanic white (NHW) (n = 135,358), non-Hispanic black (NHB) (n = 21,882), Hispanic or Latino (n = 15,559), and Asian American or Pacific Islander (n = 7995). Hispanic or Latino men were further categorized into the following subgroups: Mexican (n = 3323) and South or Central American, excluding Brazilian (n = 1296), Puerto Rican (n = 409), and Cuban (n = 218). A multivariable analysis was conducted using competing risk regression in the prediction of PCSM. RESULTS: This analysis revealed hidden disparities in surgical outcomes for prostate cancer. In the multivariable analysis, Hispanic or Latino men (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88, P = .207) did not show a significant difference in PCSM compared with NHW men. When breaking Hispanic or Latino men into their country of origin or ancestry, Puerto Rican men were found to have significantly worse PCSM than NHW men (HR = 2.55, P = .004) and NHB men (HR = 2.33, P = .016). CONCLUSION: Our findings reveal higher rates of PCSM for Puerto Rican men after RP than for both NHW and NHB men. At a minimum, these findings need further validation and should be considered in the screening and management of these men.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if recently found disparities in prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) among Mexican and Puerto Rican men remained true in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP), where the true grade and extent of cancer are known and can be accounted for. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Men diagnosed with localized-regional prostate cancer who had undergone RP as primary treatment were identified (N = 180,794). Patients were divided into the following racial and ethnic groups: non-Hispanic white (NHW) (n = 135,358), non-Hispanic black (NHB) (n = 21,882), Hispanic or Latino (n = 15,559), and Asian American or Pacific Islander (n = 7995). Hispanic or Latino men were further categorized into the following subgroups: Mexican (n = 3323) and South or Central American, excluding Brazilian (n = 1296), Puerto Rican (n = 409), and Cuban (n = 218). A multivariable analysis was conducted using competing risk regression in the prediction of PCSM. RESULTS: This analysis revealed hidden disparities in surgical outcomes for prostate cancer. In the multivariable analysis, Hispanic or Latino men (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88, P = .207) did not show a significant difference in PCSM compared with NHW men. When breaking Hispanic or Latino men into their country of origin or ancestry, Puerto Rican men were found to have significantly worse PCSM than NHW men (HR = 2.55, P = .004) and NHB men (HR = 2.33, P = .016). CONCLUSION: Our findings reveal higher rates of PCSM for Puerto Rican men after RP than for both NHW and NHB men. At a minimum, these findings need further validation and should be considered in the screening and management of these men.
Authors: Scott P Kelly; Philip S Rosenberg; William F Anderson; Gabriella Andreotti; Naji Younes; Sean D Cleary; Michael B Cook Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Andrew M D Wolf; Richard C Wender; Ruth B Etzioni; Ian M Thompson; Anthony V D'Amico; Robert J Volk; Durado D Brooks; Chiranjeev Dash; Idris Guessous; Kimberly Andrews; Carol DeSantis; Robert A Smith Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Marievelisse Soto-Salgado; Erick Suárez; Mariela Torres-Cintrón; Curtis A Pettaway; Vivian Colón; Ana P Ortiz Journal: P R Health Sci J Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 0.705
Authors: Maureen R Benjamins; Bijou R Hunt; Sarah M Raleigh; Jana L Hirschtick; Michelle M Hughes Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Marianne Schmid; Christian P Meyer; Gally Reznor; Toni K Choueiri; Julian Hanske; Jesse D Sammon; Firas Abdollah; Felix K H Chun; Adam S Kibel; Reginald D Tucker-Seeley; Philip W Kantoff; Stuart R Lipsitz; Mani Menon; Paul L Nguyen; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Felix M Chinea; Vivek N Patel; Deukwoo Kwon; Narottam Lamichhane; Chris Lopez; Sanoj Punnen; Erin N Kobetz; Matthew C Abramowitz; Alan Pollack Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-07-06
Authors: Helen Y Hougen; Oleksii A Iakymenko; Sanoj Punnen; Chad R Ritch; Bruno Nahar; Dipen J Parekh; Oleksandr N Kryvenko; Mark L Gonzalgo Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Mike Wenzel; Christoph Würnschimmel; Luigi Nocera; Claudia Colla Ruvolo; Benedikt Hoeh; Zhe Tian; Shahrokh F Shariat; Fred Saad; Alberto Briganti; Markus Graefen; Felix Preisser; Andreas Becker; Philipp Mandel; Felix K H Chun; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-08-19 Impact factor: 5.738