We compared upgrading and upstaging rates in low risk and favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer (CaP) patients according to racial and/or ethnic group: Mexican-Americans and Caucasians.
Within Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2010-2015), we identified low risk and favorable intermediate risk CaP patients according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.
Descriptives and logistic regression models were used. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis was performed to test the association between Mexican-American vs. Caucasian racial and/or ethnic groups and upgrading either to Gleason-Grade Group (GGG II) or to GGG III, IV or V, in low risk or favorable intermediate risk CaP patients, respectively.
We identified 673 (2.6%) Mexican-American and 24,959 (97.4%) Caucasian CaP patients. Of those, 14,789 were low risk (434 [2.9%] Mexican-Americans vs. 14,355 [97.1%] Caucasians) and 10,834 were favorable intermediate risk (239 [2.2%] Mexican-Americans vs. 10,604 [97.8%] Caucasians). In low risk CaP patients, Mexican-American vs. Caucasian racial and/or ethnic group did not result in either upgrading or upstaging differences. However, in favorable intermediate risk CaP patients, upgrading rate was higher in Mexican-Americans than in Caucasians (31.4 vs. 25.5%, OR 1.33, P = 0.044), but no difference was recorded for upstaging. When comparisons focused on upgrading to GGG III, IV or V, higher rate was recorded in Mexican-American relative to Caucasian favorable intermediate risk CaP patients (20.4 vs. 15.4%, OR 1.41, P = 0.034).
Low risk Mexican-American CaP patients do not differ from low risk Caucasian CaP patients. However, favorable intermediate risk Mexican-American CaP patients exhibit higher rates of upgrading than their Caucasian counterparts. This information should be considered at treatment decision making.
Urologic oncology. 2020 Sep 17 [Epub ahead of print]
Claudia Collà Ruvolo, Lara Franziska Stolzenbach, Luigi Nocera, Marina Deuker, Francesco A Mistretta, Stefano Luzzago, Zhe Tian, Nicola Longo, Markus Graefen, Felix K H Chun, Fred Saad, Alberto Briganti, Ottavio De Cobelli, Vincenzo Mirone, Pierre I Karakiewicz
Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Italy; Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada. Electronic address: ., Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany., Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IBCAS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy., Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany., Department of Urology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy., Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada., Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Italy., Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany., Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany., Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IBCAS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy., Department of Urology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Dipartimento di Oncologia ed Ematoncologia - DIPO- Univeristà degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32950397