Temporal and spatial trends and determinants of aggressive prostate cancer among Black and White men with prostate cancer
- 39 Downloads
Few studies have reported temporal and spatial trends of aggressive prostate cancer (PC) among black men who are known to have more aggressive disease. We examined these trends for highly aggressive PC at diagnosis among black and white men in Pennsylvania (PA).
Men, aged ≥ 40 years, with a primary, clinical PC diagnosis were identified from the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry, 2004–2014. Joinpoint analysis was used to evaluate the temporal trend of highly aggressive PC (clinical/pathologic Gleason score ≥ 7 [4 + 3], clinical/pathologic tumor stage ≥ T3, or distant metastasis) and identify change points by race in which annual percent change (APC) was calculated. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine the association between race and highly aggressive PC, after adjusting for covariates with and without spatial dependence.
There were 89,133 PC cases, which included 88.7% white and 11.3% black men. The APC of highly aggressive PC was 8.7% from 2011 to 2014 among white men and 3.6% from 2007 to 2014 among black men (p values ≤ 0.01). The greatest odds of having highly aggressive PC among black compared to white men were found in counties where the black male population was ≤ 5.3%.
Highly aggressive PC increased for both black and white men in PA between 2004 and 2014. Black men had more aggressive disease, with the greatest odds in counties where the black male population was small. The increase in highly aggressive PC may be due to less screening for PC, resulting in more advanced disease at diagnosis.
KeywordsProstate cancer Aggressiveness Health disparities Spatial analysis
A special thanks to James Rubertone for data extraction and other inquiries related to the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry.
This study was supported by The Eberly Medical Research Endowment Innovation Fund at the Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, The Pennsylvania State Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) Novel Methodologies in Health Research (5 UL1 RR0330184-04), and Highmark Incorporation Grant at Penn State Cancer Institute.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
This study used existing data which allowed to waive informed consent and was approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Health and the Institutional Review Board of The Pennsylvania State College of Medicine.
- 1.ACS (2018) Cancer facts & figures 2018. American Cancer Society, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
- 2.Wood HM, Reuther AM, Gilligan TD, Kupelian PA, Modlin CS, Klein EA (2007) Rates of biochemical remission remain higher in black men compared to white men after radical prostatectomy despite similar trends in prostate specific antigen induced stage migration. J Urol 178(4):1271–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2009 (Vintage 2009 Populations) (2009) National Cancer Institute. Accessed 2012Google Scholar
- 6.SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2016 (2018) National Cancer Institute. https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2016/. Accessed 9 Feb 2019
- 8.Gejerman G, Ciccone P, Goldstein M, Lanteri V, Schlecker B, Sanzone J, Esposito M, Rome S, Ciccone M, Margolis E, Simon R, Guo Y, Pentakota SR, Sadhegi-Nejad H (2017) US Preventive Services Task Force prostate-specific antigen screening guidelines result in higher Gleason score diagnoses. Investig Clin Urol 58(6):423–428. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2017.58.6.423 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 10.Bureau USC (2010) Geographic terms and concepts—urban and rural, 2017. https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_urbanrural.html
- 15.Chi G, Wang D (2016) Small-area population forecasting: a geographically weighted regression approach. In: Swanson D (ed) The frontiers of applied demography. Springer, New York, pp 449–471Google Scholar
- 16.Team RC (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
- 17.Institute ESR (2009) ArcGIS Desktop Help 9.3 Geostatistical Analyst. Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
- 18.Bureau USC (2018) Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Selected Age Groups by Sex for the United States, States, Counties and Puerto Rico Commonwealth and Municipios: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2017/demo/popest/counties-detail.html. Accessed 1/18/19 2019
- 20.Health PDo (2017) Cancer facts and figures Pennsylvania, 2017 (trans: Informatics DoH). Pennsylvania Department of Health, Harrisburg, PAGoogle Scholar
- 23.Calonge N, Petitti DB, Dewitt TG, Dietrich AJ, Gregory KD, Harris R, Isham GJ, Lefevre ML, Leipzig R, Loveland-Cherry C, Marion LN (2008) Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 149(3):185–191Google Scholar
- 24.Moyer VA (2012) Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 157 (2):120–134. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00459 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Network ACC (2009) The Cancer Burden in Appalachia.Google Scholar
- 29.Commission AR (2019) The Appalachian Region. Appalachia Regional Commission. https://www.arc.gov/appalachian_region/TheAppalachianRegion.asp