Comparison of Mexican-American vs Caucasian prostate cancer active surveillance candidates.


Journal

Urologic oncology
ISSN: 1873-2496
Titre abrégé: Urol Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9805460

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 2021
Historique:
received: 27 04 2020
revised: 26 06 2020
accepted: 05 08 2020
pubmed: 21 9 2020
medline: 23 7 2021
entrez: 20 9 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

We compared upgrading and upstaging rates in low risk and favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer (CaP) patients according to racial and/or ethnic group: Mexican-Americans and Caucasians. Within Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2010-2015), we identified low risk and favorable intermediate risk CaP patients according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Descriptives and logistic regression models were used. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis was performed to test the association between Mexican-American vs. Caucasian racial and/or ethnic groups and upgrading either to Gleason-Grade Group (GGG II) or to GGG III, IV or V, in low risk or favorable intermediate risk CaP patients, respectively. We identified 673 (2.6%) Mexican-American and 24,959 (97.4%) Caucasian CaP patients. Of those, 14,789 were low risk (434 [2.9%] Mexican-Americans vs. 14,355 [97.1%] Caucasians) and 10,834 were favorable intermediate risk (239 [2.2%] Mexican-Americans vs. 10,604 [97.8%] Caucasians). In low risk CaP patients, Mexican-American vs. Caucasian racial and/or ethnic group did not result in either upgrading or upstaging differences. However, in favorable intermediate risk CaP patients, upgrading rate was higher in Mexican-Americans than in Caucasians (31.4 vs. 25.5%, OR 1.33, P = 0.044), but no difference was recorded for upstaging. When comparisons focused on upgrading to GGG III, IV or V, higher rate was recorded in Mexican-American relative to Caucasian favorable intermediate risk CaP patients (20.4 vs. 15.4%, OR 1.41, P = 0.034). Low risk Mexican-American CaP patients do not differ from low risk Caucasian CaP patients. However, favorable intermediate risk Mexican-American CaP patients exhibit higher rates of upgrading than their Caucasian counterparts. This information should be considered at treatment decision making.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
We compared upgrading and upstaging rates in low risk and favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer (CaP) patients according to racial and/or ethnic group: Mexican-Americans and Caucasians.
METHODS
Within Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2010-2015), we identified low risk and favorable intermediate risk CaP patients according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Descriptives and logistic regression models were used. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis was performed to test the association between Mexican-American vs. Caucasian racial and/or ethnic groups and upgrading either to Gleason-Grade Group (GGG II) or to GGG III, IV or V, in low risk or favorable intermediate risk CaP patients, respectively.
RESULTS
We identified 673 (2.6%) Mexican-American and 24,959 (97.4%) Caucasian CaP patients. Of those, 14,789 were low risk (434 [2.9%] Mexican-Americans vs. 14,355 [97.1%] Caucasians) and 10,834 were favorable intermediate risk (239 [2.2%] Mexican-Americans vs. 10,604 [97.8%] Caucasians). In low risk CaP patients, Mexican-American vs. Caucasian racial and/or ethnic group did not result in either upgrading or upstaging differences. However, in favorable intermediate risk CaP patients, upgrading rate was higher in Mexican-Americans than in Caucasians (31.4 vs. 25.5%, OR 1.33, P = 0.044), but no difference was recorded for upstaging. When comparisons focused on upgrading to GGG III, IV or V, higher rate was recorded in Mexican-American relative to Caucasian favorable intermediate risk CaP patients (20.4 vs. 15.4%, OR 1.41, P = 0.034).
CONCLUSION
Low risk Mexican-American CaP patients do not differ from low risk Caucasian CaP patients. However, favorable intermediate risk Mexican-American CaP patients exhibit higher rates of upgrading than their Caucasian counterparts. This information should be considered at treatment decision making.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32950397
pii: S1078-1439(20)30379-3
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.08.012
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

74.e1-74.e7

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Claudia Collà Ruvolo (C)

Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Italy; Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada. Electronic address: c.collaruvolo@gmail.com.

Lara Franziska Stolzenbach (LF)

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Luigi Nocera (L)

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IBCAS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.

Marina Deuker (M)

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Francesco A Mistretta (FA)

Department of Urology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Stefano Luzzago (S)

Department of Urology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Zhe Tian (Z)

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Nicola Longo (N)

Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Italy.

Markus Graefen (M)

Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Felix K H Chun (FKH)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Fred Saad (F)

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Alberto Briganti (A)

Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IBCAS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.

Ottavio De Cobelli (O)

Department of Urology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Dipartimento di Oncologia ed Ematoncologia - DIPO- Univeristà degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.

Vincenzo Mirone (V)

Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Italy.

Pierre I Karakiewicz (PI)

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH