Abstract

While racial disparities in prostate cancer mortality are well documented, it is not well known how these disparities vary geographically within the US. To characterize geographic variation in prostate cancer-specific mortality differences between black and white men. This cohort study included data from 17 geographic registries within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2014. Inclusion criteria were men 18 years and older with biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer. Men missing data on key variables (ie, cancer stage, Gleason grade group, prostate-specific antigen level, and survival follow-up data) were excluded. Analysis was performed from September 5 to December 25, 2018. Patient SEER-designated race (ie, black, white, or other). Fine and Gray competing-risks regression analyses were used to evaluate the difference in prostate-cancer specific mortality between black and white men. A stratified analysis by Gleason grade group was performed stratified as grade group 1 and grade groups 2 through 5. The final cohort consisted of 229 771 men, including 178 204 white men (77.6%), 35 006 black men (15.2%), and 16 561 men of other or unknown race (7.2%). Mean (SD) age at diagnosis was 64.9 (8.8) years. There were 4773 prostate cancer deaths among white men and 1250 prostate cancer deaths among black men. Compared with white men, black men had a higher risk of mortality overall (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.39 [95% CI, 1.30-1.48]). In the stratified analysis, there were 4 registries in which black men had worse prostate cancer-specific survival in both Gleason grade group 1 (Atlanta, Georgia: AHR, 5.49 [95% CI, 2.03-14.87]; Greater Georgia: AHR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.10-3.22]; Louisiana: AHR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.06-3.07]; New Jersey: AHR, 2.60 [95% CI, 1.53-4.40]) and Gleason grade groups 2 through 5 (Atlanta: AHR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.46-2.45]; Greater Georgia: AHR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.07-1.56]; Louisiana: AHR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.07-1.54]; New Jersey: AHR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.24-1.87]), although the magnitude of survival difference was lower than for Gleason grade group 1 in each of these registries. The greatest race-based survival difference for men with Gleason grade group 1 disease was in the Atlanta registry. These findings suggest that population-level differences in prostate cancer survival among black and white men were associated with a small set of geographic areas and with low-risk prostate cancer. Targeted interventions in these areas may help to mitigate prostate cancer care disparities at the national level.

Highlights

  • Black men are more likely than white men to be diagnosed with and die of prostate cancer.[1]

  • Black men had a higher risk of mortality overall

  • The greatest race-based survival difference for men with Gleason grade group 1 disease was in the Atlanta registry. These findings suggest that population-level differences in prostate cancer survival among black and white men were associated with a small set of geographic areas and with low-risk prostate cancer

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Black men are more likely than white men to be diagnosed with and die of prostate cancer.[1] Current evidence attributes this to racial differences in both tumor biology and access to care.[2,3,4] These differences may be greatest in specific disease states, such as low-risk prostate cancer.[5,6]. While race-based prostate cancer survival differences have been identified in population-based samples,[7] little is known about how these differences vary geographically within the US. Because populations of racial and ethnic minority groups are concentrated in certain geographic areas of the US, it is possible that geographic differences in cancer survival may yield apparent race-based differences in survival and vice versa. While it is possible that the underlying geographic variation may be associated with biology and clusters of biologically related individuals, it is plausible that such variation is associated with other factors, such as access to insurance and high-quality care

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call