Multi-institution analysis of racial disparity among African-American men eligible for prostate cancer active surveillance
- PMID: 29765545
- PMCID: PMC5940363
- DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.25103
Multi-institution analysis of racial disparity among African-American men eligible for prostate cancer active surveillance
Abstract
There is a significant controversy on whether race should be a factor in considering active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. To address this question, we analyzed a multi-institution database to assess racial disparity between African-American and White-American men with low risk prostate cancer who were eligible for active surveillance but underwent radical prostatectomy. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected clinical, pathologic and oncologic outcomes of men with low-risk prostate cancer from seven tertiary care institutions that underwent radical prostatectomy from 2003-2014 were used to assess potential racial disparity. Of the 333 (14.8%) African-American and 1923 (85.2%) White-American men meeting active surveillance criteria, African-American men were found to be slightly younger (57.5 vs 58.5 years old; p = 0.01) and have higher BMI (29.3 v 27.9; p < 0.01), pre-op PSA (5.2 v 4.7; p < 0.01), and maximum percentage cancer on biopsy (15.1% v 13.6%; p < 0.01) compared to White-American men. Univariate and multivariate analysis demonstrated similar rates of upgrading, upstaging, positive surgical margin, and biochemical recurrence between races. These results suggest that single institution studies recommending more stringent AS enrollment criteria for AA men with a low-risk prostate cancer may not capture the complete oncologic landscape due to institutional variability in cancer outcomes. Since all seven institutions demonstrated no significant racial disparity, current active surveillance eligibility should not be modified based upon race until a prospective study has been completed.
Keywords: active surveillance; prostate cancer; racial disparity.
Conflict of interest statement
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None.
References
-
- Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:7–30. - PubMed
-
- Roobol MJ, Kranse R, Bangma CH, van Leenders AG, Blijenberg BG, van Schaik RH, Kirkels WJ, Otto SJ, van der Kwast TH, de Koning HJ, Schröder FH, ERSPC Rotterdam Study Group Screening for prostate cancer: results of the rotterdam section of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. European Urology. 2013;64:530–9. - PubMed
-
- Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL, 3rd, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR, Fouad MN, Isaacs C, Kvale PA, Reding DJ, Weissfeld JL, Yokochi LA, O'Brien B, et al. Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2012;104:125–32. - PMC - PubMed
-
- Klotz L. Prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Current Opinion In Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Obesity. 2013;20:204–9. - PubMed
-
- Fung-Kee-Fung SD, Porten SP, Meng MV, Kuettel M. The role of active surveillance in the management of prostate cancer. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2013;11:183–7. - PubMed
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Research Materials
