Deconstructing, Addressing, and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Inequities in Prostate Cancer Care

Context Men of African ancestry have demonstrated markedly higher rates of prostate cancer mortality than men of other races and ethnicities around the world. In fact, the highest rates of prostate cancer mortality worldwide are found in the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan West Africa, and among men of African descent in the USA. Addressing this inequity in prostate cancer care and outcomes requires a focused research approach that creates durable solutions to address the structural, social, environmental, and health factors that create racial disparities in care and outcomes. Objective To introduce a conceptual model for evaluating racial inequities in prostate cancer care to facilitate the development of translational research studies and interventions. Evidence acquisition A collaborative review of literature relevant to racial inequities in prostate cancer care and outcomes was performed. Existing literature was used to highlight various components of the conceptual model to inform future research and interventions toward equitable care and outcomes. Evidence synthesis Racial inequities in prostate cancer outcomes are driven by a series of structural and social determinants of health that impact exposures, mediators, and outcomes. Social determinants of equity, such as laws/policies, economic systems, and structural racism, affect the inequitable access to environmental and neighborhood exposures, in addition to health care access. Although the incidence disparity remains problematic, various studies have demonstrated parity in outcomes when social and health factors, such as access to equitable care, are normalized. Few studies have tested interventions to reduce inequities in prostate cancer among Black men. Conclusions Worldwide, men of African ancestry demonstrate worse outcomes in prostate cancer, a phenomenon driven largely by social factors that inform biologic, environmental, and health care risks. A conceptual model was presented that organizes the many factors that influence prostate cancer incidence and mortality. Within that framework, we must understand the current state of inequities in clinical prostate cancer practice, the optimal state of what equitable practice would be, and how achieving equity in prostate cancer care balances costs, benefits, and harms. More robust characterization of the sources of prostate cancer inequities should inform testing of ambitious and innovative interventions as we work toward equity in care and outcomes. Patient summary Men of African ancestry demonstrate the highest rates of prostate cancer mortality, which may be reduced through social interventions. We present a framework for formalizing the identification of the drivers of prostate cancer inequities to facilitate the development of interventions and trials to eradicate them

What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel

Context: It remains unclear whether patients with a suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) and negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) can safely obviate prostate biopsy. Objective: To systematically review the literature assessing the negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI in patients with a suspicion of PCa. Evidence acquisition: The Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases were searched up to February 2016. Studies reporting prebiopsy mpMRI results using transrectal or transperineal biopsy as a reference standard were included. We further selected for meta-analysis studies with at least 10-core biopsies as the reference standard, mpMRI comprising at least T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging, positive mpMRI defined as a Prostate Imaging Reporting Data System/Likert score of ≥3/5 or ≥4/5, and results reported at patient level for the detection of overall PCa or clinically significant PCa (csPCa) defined as Gleason ≥7 cancer. Evidence synthesis: A total of 48 studies (9613 patients) were eligible for inclusion. At patient level, the median prevalence was 50.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 36.4–57.7%) for overall cancer and 32.9% (IQR, 28.1–37.2%) for csPCa. The median mpMRI NPV was 82.4% (IQR, 69.0–92.4%) for overall cancer and 88.1% (IQR, 85.7–92.3) for csPCa. NPV significantly decreased when cancer prevalence increased, for overall cancer (r = –0.64, p < 0.0001) and csPCa (r = –0.75, p = 0.032). Eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Seven reported results for overall PCa. When the overall PCa prevalence increased from 30% to 60%, the combined NPV estimates decreased from 88% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 77–99%) to 67% (95% CI, 56–79%) for a cut-off score of 3/5. Only one study selected for meta-analysis reported results for Gleason ≥7 cancers, with a positive biopsy rate of 29.3%. The corresponding NPV for a cut-off score of ≥3/5 was 87.9%. Conclusions: The NPV of mpMRI varied greatly depending on study design, cancer prevalence, and definitions of positive mpMRI and csPCa. As cancer prevalence was highly variable among series, risk stratification of patients should be the initial step before considering prebiopsy mpMRI and defining those in whom biopsy may be omitted when the mpMRI is negative. Patient summary This systematic review examined if multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan can be used to reliably predict the absence of prostate cancer in patients suspected of having prostate cancer, thereby avoiding a prostate biopsy. The results suggest that whilst it is a promising tool, it is not accurate enough to replace prostate biopsy in such patients, mainly because its accuracy is variable and influenced by the prostate cancer risk. However, its performance can be enhanced if there were more accurate ways of determining the risk of having prostate cancer. When such tools are available, it should be possible to use an MRI scan to avoid biopsy in patients at a low risk of prostate cancer

Deconstructing, Addressing, and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Inequities in Prostate Cancer Care

CONTEXT: Men of African ancestry have demonstrated markedly higher rates of prostate cancer mortality than men of other races and ethnicities around the world. In fact, the highest rates of prostate cancer mortality worldwide are found in the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan West Africa, and among men of African descent in the USA. Addressing this inequity in prostate cancer care and outcomes requires a focused research approach that creates durable solutions to address the structural, social, environmental, and health factors that create racial disparities in care and outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To introduce a conceptual model for evaluating racial inequities in prostate cancer care to facilitate the development of translational research studies and interventions. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A collaborative review of literature relevant to racial inequities in prostate cancer care and outcomes was performed. Existing literature was used to highlight various components of the conceptual model to inform future research and interventions toward equitable care and outcomes. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Racial inequities in prostate cancer outcomes are driven by a series of structural and social determinants of health that impact exposures, mediators, and outcomes. Social determinants of equity, such as laws/policies, economic systems, and structural racism, affect the inequitable access to environmental and neighborhood exposures, in addition to health care access. Although the incidence disparity remains problematic, various studies have demonstrated parity in outcomes when social and health factors, such as access to equitable care, are normalized. Few studies have tested interventions to reduce inequities in prostate cancer among Black men. CONCLUSIONS: Worldwide, men of African ancestry demonstrate worse outcomes in prostate cancer, a phenomenon driven largely by social factors that inform biologic, environmental, and health care risks. A conceptual model was presented that organizes the many factors that influence prostate cancer incidence and mortality. Within that framework, we must understand the current state of inequities in clinical prostate cancer practice, the optimal state of what equitable practice would be, and how achieving equity in prostate cancer care balances costs, benefits, and harms. More robust characterization of the sources of prostate cancer inequities should inform testing of ambitious and innovative interventions as we work toward equity in care and outcomes. PATIENT SUMMARY: Men of African ancestry demonstrate the highest rates of prostate cancer mortality, which may be reduced through social interventions. We present a framework for formalizing the identification of the drivers of prostate cancer inequities to facilitate the development of interventions and trials to eradicate them

EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent

Objective To present a summary of the 2016 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) - European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) - International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). Evidence acquisition The working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2013–2015). The guidelines were updated and the levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added based on a systematic review of the evidence. Evidence synthesis BRCA2 mutations have been added as risk factors for early and aggressive disease. In addition to the Gleason score, the five-tier 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology grading system should now be provided. Systematic screening is still not recommended. Instead, an individual risk-adapted strategy following a detailed discussion and taking into account the patient's wishes and life expectancy must be considered. An early prostate-specific antigen test, the use of a risk calculator, or one of the promising biomarker tools are being investigated and might be able to limit the overdetection of insignificant PCa. Breaking the link between diagnosis and treatment may lower the overtreatment risk. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging using standardised reporting cannot replace systematic biopsy, but robustly nested within the diagnostic work-up, it has a key role in local staging. Active surveillance always needs to be discussed with very low-risk patients. The place of surgery in high-risk disease and the role of lymph node dissection have been clarified, as well as the management of node-positive patients. Radiation therapy using dose-escalated intensity-modulated technology is a key treatment modality with recent improvement in the outcome based on increased doses as well as combination with hormonal treatment. Moderate hypofractionation is safe and effective, but longer-term data are still lacking. Brachytherapy represents an effective way to increase the delivered dose. Focal therapy remains experimental while cryosurgery and HIFU are still lacking long-term convincing results. Conclusions The knowledge in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2016 EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for the use in clinical practice. These are the first PCa guidelines endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and the International Society of Geriatric Oncology and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. A full version is available from the EAU office and online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/). Patient summary The 2016 EAU-STRO-IOG Prostate Cancer (PCa) Guidelines present updated information on the diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer. In Northern and Western Europe, the number of men diagnosed with PCa has been on the rise. This may be due to an increase in opportunistic screening, but other factors may also be involved (eg, diet, sexual behaviour, low exposure to ultraviolet radiation). We propose that men who are potential candidates for screening should be engaged in a discussion with their clinician (also involving their families and caregivers) so that an informed decision may be made as part of an individualised risk-adapted approach

Cancer incidence among Finnish male cobalt production workers in 1969–2013: a cohort study

Abstract Background There is inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity of cobalt and cobalt compounds in humans. Consequently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has evaluated cobalt metal without tungsten carbide as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). The aim of the study was to assess the risk of cancer among workers employed in a Finnish cobalt plant since the beginning of production in 1968. Methods The study cohort consisted of all males employed by the Finnish cobalt plant for at least a year during 1968–2004. The follow-up for cancer was performed by studying the files of the Finnish Cancer Registry, using personal identity codes as a key. The cohort was divided into subcohorts by exposure levels. Standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated as ratios of the observed numbers of cancer cases and the numbers expected on the basis of incidence rates in the population of the same region. Results The follow-up cohort consisted of 995 men with 26,083 person-years. During the follow-up period, 92 cases of cancer were diagnosed (SIR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81–1.22), six of which were lung cancer cases (SIR 0.50; 95% CI 0.18–1.08). The only cancer type with increased incidence was tongue cancer (three cases, SIR 7.39; 95% CI 1.52–21.6). We observed no dose-response effect across the different exposure levels and the incidence of any cancer type. Conclusions The results suggest that occupational exposure to cobalt is not associated with an increased overall cancer risk or lung cancer risk among cobalt workers. Because of the small number of cancer cases the results must be interpreted with caution