Active surveillance for intermediate‐risk prostate cancer in African American and non‐Hispanic White men

Background The safety of active surveillance (AS) for African American men compared with non‐Hispanic White (White) men with intermediate‐risk prostate cancer is unclear. Methods The authors identified patients with modified National Comprehensive Cancer Network favorable (“low‐intermediate”) and un...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cancer 2021-12, Vol.127 (23), p.4403-4412
Hauptverfasser: Courtney, P. Travis, Deka, Rishi, Kotha, Nikhil V., Cherry, Daniel R., Salans, Mia A., Nelson, Tyler J., Kumar, Abhishek, Luterstein, Elaine, Yip, Anthony T., Nalawade, Vinit, Parsons, J. Kellogg, Kader, A. Karim, Stewart, Tyler F., Rose, Brent S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background The safety of active surveillance (AS) for African American men compared with non‐Hispanic White (White) men with intermediate‐risk prostate cancer is unclear. Methods The authors identified patients with modified National Comprehensive Cancer Network favorable (“low‐intermediate”) and unfavorable (“high‐intermediate”) intermediate‐risk prostate cancer diagnosed between 2001 and 2015 and initially managed with AS in the Veterans Health Administration database. They analyzed definitive treatment, disease progression, metastases, prostate cancer–specific mortality (PCSM), and all‐cause mortality by using cumulative incidences and multivariable competing‐risks (disease progression, metastasis, and PCSM) or Cox (all‐cause mortality) regression. Results The cohort included 1007 men (African Americans, 330 [32.8%]; Whites, 677 [67.2%]) followed for a median of 7.7 years; 773 (76.8%) had low‐intermediate‐risk disease, and 234 (23.2%) had high‐intermediate‐risk disease. The 10‐year cumulative incidences of definitive treatment were not significantly different (African Americans, 83.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 78.5%‐88.7%; Whites, 80.6%; 95% CI, 76.6%‐84.4%; P = .17). Among those with low‐intermediate‐risk disease, there were no significant differences in the 10‐year cumulative incidences of disease progression (African Americans, 46.8%; 95% CI, 40.0%‐53.3%; Whites, 46.9%; 95% CI, 42.1%‐51.5%; P = .91), metastasis (African Americans, 7.1%; 95% CI, 3.7%‐11.8%; Whites, 10.8%; 95% CI, 7.6%‐14.6%; P = .17), or PCSM (African Americans, 3.8%; 95% CI, 1.6%‐7.5%; Whites, 3.8%; 95% CI, 2.0%‐6.3%; P = .69). In a multivariable regression including the entire cohort, African American race was not associated with increased risks of definitive treatment, disease progression, metastasis, PCSM, or all‐cause mortality (all P > .30). Conclusions Outcomes in the Veterans Affairs Health System were similar for African American and White men treated for low‐intermediate‐risk prostate cancer with AS. The safety of active surveillance for African American men with intermediate‐risk prostate cancer is unclear. This study has measured similar clinical outcomes for African American men and non‐Hispanic White men treated for either modified National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) favorable (“low‐intermediate”) or unfavorable (“high‐intermediate”) intermediate‐risk prostate cancer with active surveillance, and it suggests that active surveillance may be an appropriate op
ISSN:0008-543X
1097-0142
DOI:10.1002/cncr.33824