Amr Mahran1,2, Kirtishri Mishra1,2, Laura Bukavina1,2, Fredrick Schumacher3, Anna Quian2, Christina Buzzy1,2, Carvell T Nguyen4, Vikas Gulani1,2,5,6, Lee E Ponsky7,8. 1. Division of Urologic Oncology, Urology Institute, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Lakeside Building Suite 4954, Mailstop LKS 5046, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA. 2. Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. 4. Division of Urology, The Metro Health Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA. 6. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. 7. Division of Urologic Oncology, Urology Institute, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Lakeside Building Suite 4954, Mailstop LKS 5046, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA. Lee.Ponsky@UHhospitals.org. 8. Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA. Lee.Ponsky@UHhospitals.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the trend that despite recent advances in the screening, diagnosis, and management of prostate cancer (PCa), African-Americans (AAs) continue to have poorer outcomes compared to their Caucasian (CAU) counterparts. The reason for this may be rooted in biological differences in the cancer between the two groups; however, there may be some inherent disparities within the efficacy of the screening modalities. In this study, we aim to evaluate the negative predictive value (NPV) of multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) between AA compared to CAUs. METHODS: All mpMRI between January 2014 and June 2017 were evaluated. The MRIs were read by dedicated genitourinary radiologists. Subsequently, the readings were correlated to final pathology after the patients underwent radical prostatectomy. The NPV and negative likelihood ratios (-LR) of mpMRI were evaluated in AAs versus CAUs based on four cutoffs (≥ Grade I, ≥ Grade II, ≥ Grade III and ≥ Grade IV). RESULTS: The mpMRI was almost equally as effective between AAs and CAUs in excluding Grade III (NPV = 89 and 94, respectively), and Grade IV or above (NPV = 96 and 98, respectively) PCa; however, the NPV of mpMRI was significantly lower for Grade I (NPV = 32 and 52, respectively) and Grade II (NPV = 50 and 79, respectively) PCa. CONCLUSION: Despite advances in the screening for PCa, there are disparities noted in the efficacy of screening tools between AAs and CAUs. For this reason, patients should be risk stratified and their screening results should be evaluated with consideration given to their baseline risk.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the trend that despite recent advances in the screening, diagnosis, and management of prostate cancer (PCa), African-Americans (AAs) continue to have poorer outcomes compared to their Caucasian (CAU) counterparts. The reason for this may be rooted in biological differences in the cancer between the two groups; however, there may be some inherent disparities within the efficacy of the screening modalities. In this study, we aim to evaluate the negative predictive value (NPV) of multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) between AA compared to CAUs. METHODS: All mpMRI between January 2014 and June 2017 were evaluated. The MRIs were read by dedicated genitourinary radiologists. Subsequently, the readings were correlated to final pathology after the patients underwent radical prostatectomy. The NPV and negative likelihood ratios (-LR) of mpMRI were evaluated in AAs versus CAUs based on four cutoffs (≥ Grade I, ≥ Grade II, ≥ Grade III and ≥ Grade IV). RESULTS: The mpMRI was almost equally as effective between AAs and CAUs in excluding Grade III (NPV = 89 and 94, respectively), and Grade IV or above (NPV = 96 and 98, respectively) PCa; however, the NPV of mpMRI was significantly lower for Grade I (NPV = 32 and 52, respectively) and Grade II (NPV = 50 and 79, respectively) PCa. CONCLUSION: Despite advances in the screening for PCa, there are disparities noted in the efficacy of screening tools between AAs and CAUs. For this reason, patients should be risk stratified and their screening results should be evaluated with consideration given to their baseline risk.
Authors: Stephan Polanec; Thomas H Helbich; Hubert Bickel; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Dietmar Georg; Shahrokh F Shariat; Wolfgang Aulitzky; Martin Susani; Pascal A Baltzer Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Massimo Valerio; Ian Donaldson; Mark Emberton; Behfar Ehdaie; Boris A Hadaschik; Leonard S Marks; Pierre Mozer; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Hashim U Ahmed Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-11-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ivo G Schoots; Monique J Roobol; Daan Nieboer; Chris H Bangma; Ewout W Steyerberg; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Debasish Sundi; Oleksandr N Kryvenko; H Ballentine Carter; Ashley E Ross; Jonathan I Epstein; Edward M Schaeffer Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Titilola O Akinremi; Frank Chinegwundoh; Robin Roberts; Daohai Yu; R Renee Reams; Matthew L Freedman; Brian Rivers; B Lee Green; Folakemi T Odedina; Nagi Kumar Journal: Infect Agent Cancer Date: 2009-02-10 Impact factor: 2.965