Isaac E Kim1, Thomas L Jang2,3, Sinae Kim4, Parth K Modi5, Eric A Singer2,3, Sammy E Elsamra1,2,3, Isaac Yi Kim2,3. 1. Department of Urology, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 2. Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 3. Division of Urology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Rutgers School of Public Health, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 5. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In May 2012, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer (PCa), assigning it a grade D. This decision then was modified in 2018 to a grade C for men aged 55 to 69 years. The authors hypothesized that changes in screening practices would reduce survival outcomes for both Black and White men but maintain racial discrepancies in outcomes. METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, the authors examined PCa-specific survival based on race and year of diagnosis. The period between January 2010 and December 2012 was categorized as the pre-USPSTF era, whereas the period between January 2014 and December 2016 was classified as the post-USPSTF era. The year 2013 was considered the transition year and was excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 49,388 men were identified in the pre-USPSTF era who were diagnosed with PCa, approximately 83.7% of whom were White and 16.3% of whom were Black. In the post-USPSTF era, a total of 41,829 men were diagnosed with PCa, approximately 82.7% of whom were White and 17.3% of whom were Black. When compared with the pre-USPSTF era, men diagnosed in the post-USPSTF era were found to have more adverse clinical features. In the pre-USPSTF era, White men were less likely to die of PCa than Black men. This survival disparity between White and Black men was no longer observed in the post-USPSTF era. CONCLUSIONS: In men diagnosed with PCa between 2014 and 2016, a survival disparity between White and Black men was not observed due to a decrease in survival among White men while the survival of Black men remained steady.
BACKGROUND: In May 2012, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer (PCa), assigning it a grade D. This decision then was modified in 2018 to a grade C for men aged 55 to 69 years. The authors hypothesized that changes in screening practices would reduce survival outcomes for both Black and White men but maintain racial discrepancies in outcomes. METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, the authors examined PCa-specific survival based on race and year of diagnosis. The period between January 2010 and December 2012 was categorized as the pre-USPSTF era, whereas the period between January 2014 and December 2016 was classified as the post-USPSTF era. The year 2013 was considered the transition year and was excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 49,388 men were identified in the pre-USPSTF era who were diagnosed with PCa, approximately 83.7% of whom were White and 16.3% of whom were Black. In the post-USPSTF era, a total of 41,829 men were diagnosed with PCa, approximately 82.7% of whom were White and 17.3% of whom were Black. When compared with the pre-USPSTF era, men diagnosed in the post-USPSTF era were found to have more adverse clinical features. In the pre-USPSTF era, White men were less likely to die of PCa than Black men. This survival disparity between White and Black men was no longer observed in the post-USPSTF era. CONCLUSIONS: In men diagnosed with PCa between 2014 and 2016, a survival disparity between White and Black men was not observed due to a decrease in survival among White men while the survival of Black men remained steady.
Authors: Isaac E Kim; Daniel D Kim; Sinae Kim; Shuangge Ma; Thomas L Jang; Eric A Singer; Saum Ghodoussipour; Isaac Yi Kim Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2022-06-25 Impact factor: 2.090
Authors: Laura Burgess; Christopher M Aldrighetti; Anushka Ghosh; Andrzej Niemierko; Fumiko Chino; Melissa J Huynh; Jason A Efstathiou; Sophia C Kamran Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-05-02
Authors: Isaac E Kim; Thomas L Jang; Sinae Kim; David Y Lee; Daniel D Kim; Eric A Singer; Saum Ghodoussipour; Mark N Stein; Monish Aron; Marc A Dall'Era; Isaac Yi Kim Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-10-29 Impact factor: 4.452