Observed racial disparity in the negative predictive value of multi-parametric MRI for the diagnosis for prostate cancer.
Multi-parametric MRI
Negative predictive value
Prostate cancer
Racial disparity
Journal
International urology and nephrology
ISSN: 1573-2584
Titre abrégé: Int Urol Nephrol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 0262521
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2019
Aug 2019
Historique:
received:
07
03
2019
accepted:
20
04
2019
pubmed:
3
5
2019
medline:
20
2
2020
entrez:
4
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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). 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. 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31049779
doi: 10.1007/s11255-019-02158-6
pii: 10.1007/s11255-019-02158-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1343-1348Références
Infect Agent Cancer. 2009 Feb 10;4 Suppl 1:S2
pubmed: 19208207
J Urol. 2010 May;183(5):1792-6
pubmed: 20299055
J Urol. 2014 Jan;191(1):60-7
pubmed: 23770146
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Aug 20;31(24):2991-7
pubmed: 23775960
Eur Urol. 2015 Jul;68(1):8-19
pubmed: 25454618
Eur Urol. 2015 Sep;68(3):438-50
pubmed: 25480312
CA Cancer J Clin. 2015 Jan-Feb;65(1):5-29
pubmed: 25559415
Eur J Radiol. 2016 Jun;85(6):1125-31
pubmed: 27161062
BMC Urol. 2016 May 10;16(1):19
pubmed: 27165293
Ann Transl Med. 2016 May;4(10):205
pubmed: 27294246
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):517-531
pubmed: 27568655
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Jan;208(1):131-139
pubmed: 27726415
Eur Urol. 2017 Aug;72(2):250-266
pubmed: 28336078
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2016 Jul 25;1(4):325-332
pubmed: 28740904
Int Urol Nephrol. 2018 Jan;50(1):13-19
pubmed: 29188489
Urol Oncol. 2018 May;36(5):241.e7-241.e13
pubmed: 29526599
Urol Oncol. 2018 Nov;36(11):501.e1-501.e8
pubmed: 30236853
JAMA. 2018 Dec 18;320(23):2479-2481
pubmed: 30561471
Int Urol Nephrol. 2019 Mar;51(3):425-434
pubmed: 30671889