Practice patterns and outcomes of equivocal bone scans for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer: Results from SEARCH.

ObjectiveTo review follow-up imaging after equivocal bone scans in men with castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and examine the characteristics of equivocal bone scans that are associated with positive follow-up imaging.MethodsWe identified 639 men from five Veterans Affairs Hospitals with a technetium-99m bone scan after CRPC diagnosis, of whom 99 (15%) had equivocal scans. Men with equivocal scans were segregated into "high-risk" and "low-risk" subcategories based upon wording in the bone scan report. All follow-up imaging (bone scans, computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], and X-rays) in the 3 months after the equivocal scan were reviewed. Variables were compared between patients with a positive vs. negative follow-up imaging after an equivocal bone scan.ResultsOf 99 men with an equivocal bone scan, 43 (43%) received at least one follow-up imaging test, including 32/82 (39%) with low-risk scans and 11/17 (65%) with high-risk scans (p = 0.052). Of follow-up tests, 67% were negative, 14% were equivocal, and 19% were positive. Among those who underwent follow-up imaging, 3/32 (9%) low-risk men had metastases vs. 5/11 (45%) high-risk men (p = 0.015).ConclusionWhile 19% of all men who received follow-up imaging had positive follow-up imaging, only 9% of those with a low-risk equivocal bone scan had metastases versus 45% of those with high-risk. These preliminary findings, if confirmed in larger studies, suggest follow-up imaging tests for low-risk equivocal scans can be delayed while high-risk equivocal scans should receive follow-up imaging

Socioeconomic status, race, and long-term outcomes after radical prostatectomy in an equal access health system: Results from the SEARCH database.

IntroductionWe previously found racial differences in biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) persisted after adjusting for socioeconomic status (SES) while SES did not predict BCR. The impact on long-term prostate cancer (PC) outcomes is unclear. We hypothesized higher SES would associate with better long-term outcomes regardless of race.MethodsAmong 4,787 black and white men undergoing RP from 1988 to 2015 in the SEARCH Database, poverty (primary SES measure) was estimated by linking home ZIP-code to census data. Cox models were used to test the association between SES adjusting for demographic, clinicopathological features, and race with BCR, castration-resistant PC (CRPC), metastases, PC-specific mortality (PCSM), and all-cause mortality. Interactions between race and SES were tested.ResultsMedian follow-up was 98 months (Interquartile range: 54-150 months). There were no interactions between race and SES for BCR. Black men had 10%- to 11% increased BCR risk (P < 0.06) while SES was unrelated to BCR. There were interactions between SES and race for CRPC (P = 0.002), metastasis (P = 0.014), and PCSM (P = 0.004). Lower SES was associated with decreased CRPC (P = 0.012), metastases (P = 0.004), and PCSM (P = 0.049) in black, but not white men (all P ≥ 0.22). Higher SES was associated with decreased all-cause mortality in both races.ConclusionsIn an equal-access setting, lower SES associated with decreased CRPC, metastases, and PCSM in black but not white men. If confirmed, these findings suggest a complex relationship between race, SES, and PC with further research needed to understand why low SES in black men decreased the risk for poor PC outcomes after RP

Practice Patterns and Outcomes of Equivocal Bone Scans for Patients With Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Results From Search

Objective: To review follow-up imaging after equivocal bone scans in men with castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and examine the characteristics of equivocal bone scans that are associated with positive follow-up imaging. Methods: We identified 639 men from five Veterans Affairs Hospitals with a technetium-99m bone scan after CRPC diagnosis, of whom 99 (15%) had equivocal scans. Men with equivocal scans were segregated into high-risk and low-risk subcategories based upon wording in the bone scan report. All follow-up imaging (bone scans, computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], and X-rays) in the 3 months after the equivocal scan were reviewed. Variables were compared between patients with a positive vs. negative follow-up imaging after an equivocal bone scan. Results: Of 99 men with an equivocal bone scan, 43 (43%) received at least one follow-up imaging test, including 32/82 (39%) with low-risk scans and 11/17 (65%) with high-risk scans (p = 0.052). Of follow-up tests, 67% were negative, 14% were equivocal, and 19% were positive. Among those who underwent follow-up imaging, 3/32 (9%) low-risk men had metastases vs. 5/11 (45%) high-risk men (p = 0.015). Conclusion: While 19% of all men who received follow-up imaging had positive follow-up imaging, only 9% of those with a low-risk equivocal bone scan had metastases versus 45% of those with high-risk. These preliminary findings, if confirmed in larger studies, suggest follow-up imaging tests for low-risk equivocal scans can be delayed while high-risk equivocal scans should receive follow-up imaging