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

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

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.

Related collections

Most cited references 27

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

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

Peter C Austin (2011)

The propensity score is the probability of treatment assignment conditional on observed baseline characteristics. The propensity score allows one to design and analyze an observational (nonrandomized) study so that it mimics some of the particular characteristics of a randomized controlled trial. In particular, the propensity score is a balancing score: conditional on the propensity score, the distribution of observed baseline covariates will be similar between treated and untreated subjects. I describe 4 different propensity score methods: matching on the propensity score, stratification on the propensity score, inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score, and covariate adjustment using the propensity score. I describe balance diagnostics for examining whether the propensity score model has been adequately specified. Furthermore, I discuss differences between regression-based methods and propensity score-based methods for the analysis of observational data. I describe different causal average treatment effects and their relationship with propensity score analyses.

0 comments Cited 2028 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial.

Gerald Andriole, E David Crawford, Robert L Grubb … (2009)

The effect of screening with prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) testing and digital rectal examination on the rate of death from prostate cancer is unknown. This is the first report from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial on prostate-cancer mortality. From 1993 through 2001, we randomly assigned 76,693 men at 10 U.S. study centers to receive either annual screening (38,343 subjects) or usual care as the control (38,350 subjects). Men in the screening group were offered annual PSA testing for 6 years and digital rectal examination for 4 years. The subjects and health care providers received the results and decided on the type of follow-up evaluation. Usual care sometimes included screening, as some organizations have recommended. The numbers of all cancers and deaths and causes of death were ascertained. In the screening group, rates of compliance were 85% for PSA testing and 86% for digital rectal examination. Rates of screening in the control group increased from 40% in the first year to 52% in the sixth year for PSA testing and ranged from 41 to 46% for digital rectal examination. After 7 years of follow-up, the incidence of prostate cancer per 10,000 person-years was 116 (2820 cancers) in the screening group and 95 (2322 cancers) in the control group (rate ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16 to 1.29). The incidence of death per 10,000 person-years was 2.0 (50 deaths) in the screening group and 1.7 (44 deaths) in the control group (rate ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.70). The data at 10 years were 67% complete and consistent with these overall findings. After 7 to 10 years of follow-up, the rate of death from prostate cancer was very low and did not differ significantly between the two study groups. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002540.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society

0 comments Cited 556 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

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

Vivek H Murthy, Harlan M Krumholz, Cary P Gross (2004)

Despite the importance of diversity of cancer trial participants with regard to race, ethnicity, age, and sex, there is little recent information about the representation of these groups in clinical trials. To characterize the representation of racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and women in cancer trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. Cross-sectional population-based analysis of all participants in therapeutic nonsurgical National Cancer Institute Clinical Trial Cooperative Group breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer clinical trials in 2000 through 2002. In a separate analysis, the ethnic distribution of patients enrolled in 2000 through 2002 was compared with those enrolled in 1996 through 1998, using logistic regression models to estimate the relative risk ratio of enrollment for racial and ethnic minorities to that of white patients during these time periods. Enrollment fraction, defined as the number of trial enrollees divided by the estimated US cancer cases in each race and age subgroup. Cancer research participation varied significantly across racial/ethnic and age groups. Compared with a 1.8% enrollment fraction among white patients, lower enrollment fractions were noted in Hispanic (1.3%; odds ratio [OR] vs whites, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.77; P<.001) and black (1.3%; OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.68-0.74; P<.001) patients. There was a strong relationship between age and enrollment fraction, with trial participants 30 to 64 years of age representing 3.0% of incident cancer patients in that age group, in comparison to 1.3% of 65- to 74-year-old patients and 0.5% of patients 75 years of age and older. This inverse relationship between age and trial enrollment fraction was consistent across racial and ethnic groups. Although the total number of trial participants increased during our study period, the representation of racial and ethnic minorities decreased. In comparison to whites, after adjusting for age, cancer type, and sex, patients enrolled in 2000 through 2002 were 24% less likely to be black (adjusted relative risk ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.89; P<.001). Men were more likely than women to enroll in colorectal cancer trials (enrollment fractions: 2.1% vs 1.6%, respectively; OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.24-1.35; P<.001) and lung cancer trials (enrollment fractions: 0.9% vs 0.7%, respectively; OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.16-1.31; P<.001). Enrollment in cancer trials is low for all patient groups. Racial and ethnic minorities, women, and the elderly were less likely to enroll in cooperative group cancer trials than were whites, men, and younger patients, respectively. The proportion of trial participants who are black has declined in recent years.