Literature DB >> 34893859

Evaluating Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening for Young African American Men With Cancer.

Edmund M Qiao1,2, Julie A Lynch3, Kyung M Lee3, Nikhil V Kotha1,2, Vinit Nalawade1,2, Rohith S Voora1,2, Alexander S Qian2, Tyler J Nelson1,2, Kosj Yamoah4, Isla P Garraway5, Tyler F Stewart6, J Kellogg Parsons7, Brent S Rose1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite higher risks associated with prostate cancer, young African American men are poorly represented in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) trials, which limits proper evidence-based guidance. We evaluated the impact of PSA screening, alongside primary care provider utilization, on prostate cancer outcomes for these patients.
METHODS: We identified African American men aged 40-55 years, diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2004 and 2017 within the Veterans Health Administration. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted propensity scores were used in multivariable models to assess PSA screening on PSA levels higher than 20, Gleason score of 8 or higher, and metastatic disease at diagnosis. Lead-time adjusted Fine-Gray regression evaluated PSA screening on prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), with noncancer death as competing events. All statistical tests were 2-sided.
RESULTS: The cohort included 4726 patients. Mean age was 51.8 years, with 84-month median follow-up. There were 1057 (22.4%) with no PSA screening prior to diagnosis. Compared with no screening, PSA screening was associated with statistically significantly reduced odds of PSA levels higher than 20 (odds ratio [OR] = 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 0.63; P < .001), Gleason score of 8 or higher (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.88; P < .001), and metastatic disease at diagnosis (OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.64; P < .001), and decreased PCSM (subdistribution hazard ratio = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36 to 0.76; P  < .001). Primary care provider visits displayed similar effects.
CONCLUSIONS: Among young African American men diagnosed with prostate cancer, PSA screening was associated with statistically significantly lower risk of PSA levels higher than 20, Gleason score of 8 or higher, and metastatic disease at diagnosis and statistically significantly reduced risk of PCSM. However, the retrospective design limits precise estimation of screening effects. Prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34893859      PMCID: PMC9002290          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djab221

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   11.816


  27 in total

1.  Surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma is associated with increased survival: Results from a large cohort in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Suzanne van Meer; Robert A de Man; Minneke J Coenraad; Dave Sprengers; Karin M J van Nieuwkerk; Heinz-Josef Klümpen; Peter L M Jansen; Jan N M IJzermans; Martijn G H van Oijen; Peter D Siersema; Karel J van Erpecum
Journal:  J Hepatol       Date:  2015-06-20       Impact factor: 25.083

2.  Cancer statistics for African Americans, 2019.

Authors:  Carol E DeSantis; Kimberly D Miller; Ann Goding Sauer; Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca L Siegel
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2019-02-14       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 3.  African-American Prostate Cancer Disparities.

Authors:  Zachary L Smith; Scott E Eggener; Adam B Murphy
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-08-14       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Barriers to the participation of African-American patients with cancer in clinical trials: a pilot study.

Authors:  Anjali S Advani; Benjamin Atkeson; Carrie L Brown; Bercedis L Peterson; Laura Fish; Jeffrey L Johnson; Jon P Gockerman; Marc Gautier
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-03-15       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Correcting for lead time and length bias in estimating the effect of screen detection on cancer survival.

Authors:  Stephen W Duffy; Iris D Nagtegaal; Matthew Wallis; Fay H Cafferty; Nehmat Houssami; Jane Warwick; Prue C Allgood; Olive Kearins; Nancy Tappenden; Emma O'Sullivan; Gill Lawrence
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-05-25       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities.

Authors:  Vivek H Murthy; Harlan M Krumholz; Cary P Gross
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-06-09       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Multivariate Behav Res       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 8.  Confronting diversity in the production of clinical evidence goes beyond merely including under-represented groups in clinical trials.

Authors:  Karien Stronks; Nicolien F Wieringa; Anita Hardon
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2013-06-15       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Cost implications of PSA screening differ by age.

Authors:  Karthik Rao; Stella Liang; Michael Cardamone; Corinne E Joshu; Kyle Marmen; Nrupen Bhavsar; William G Nelson; H Ballentine Carter; Michael C Albert; Elizabeth A Platz; Craig E Pollack
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2018-05-09       Impact factor: 2.264

10.  Evaluating the clinical trends and benefits of low-dose computed tomography in lung cancer patients.

Authors:  Edmund M Qiao; Rohith S Voora; Vinit Nalawade; Nikhil V Kotha; Alexander S Qian; Tyler J Nelson; Michael Durkin; Lucas K Vitzthum; James D Murphy; Tyler F Stewart; Brent S Rose
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-09-16       Impact factor: 4.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.