Dataset Information

Comparison of Response to Definitive Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer in Black and White Men: A Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Black men have a 2-fold increased risk of dying from prostate cancer compared with White men. However, race-specific differences in response to initial treatment remain unknown.

Objective

To compare overall and treatment-specific outcomes of Black and White men with localized prostate cancer receiving definitive radiotherapy (RT).

Data sources

A systematic search was performed of relevant published randomized clinical trials conducted by the NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2010. This meta-analysis was performed from July 1, 2019, to July 1, 2021.

Study selection

Randomized clinical trials of definitive RT for patients with localized prostate cancer comprising a substantial number of Black men (self-identified race) enrolled that reported on treatment-specific and overall outcomes.

Data extraction and synthesis

Individual patient data were obtained from 7 NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group randomized clinical trials evaluating definitive RT with or without short- or long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Unadjusted Fine-Gray competing risk models, with death as a competing risk, were developed to evaluate the cumulative incidences of end points. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate differences in all-cause mortality and the composite outcome of distant metastasis (DM) or death. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed.

Main outcomes and measures

Subdistribution hazard ratios (sHRs) of biochemical recurrence (BCR), DM, and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM).

Results

A total of 8814 patients (1630 [18.5%] Black and 7184 [81.5%] White) were included; mean (SD) age was 69.1 (6.8) years. Median follow-up was 10.6 (IQR, 8.0-17.8) years for surviving patients. At enrollment, Black men were more likely to have high-risk disease features. However, even without adjustment, Black men were less likely to experience BCR (sHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58-0.91), DM (sHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58-0.91), or PCSM (sHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97). No significant differences in all-cause mortality were identified (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.92-1.07). Upon adjustment, Black race remained significantly associated with improved BCR (adjusted sHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.88; P < .001), DM (adjusted sHR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.87; P = .002), and PCSM (adjusted sHR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50-0.93; P = .01).

Conclusions and relevance

The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that Black men enrolled in randomized clinical trials present with more aggressive disease but have better BCR, DM, and PCSM with definitive RT compared with White men, suggesting that other determinants of outcome, such as access to care, are important factors of achieving racial equity.

SUBMITTER: Ma TM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8717118 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceBlack individuals are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials.ObjectiveTo examine whether Black and White men with prostate cancer differ in their willingness to discuss clinical trials with their physicians and, if so, whether patient-level barriers statistically mediate racial differences.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional survey study used baseline data from Partnering Around Cancer Clinical Trials, a randomized clinical trial to increase Black individuals' enrollment in prostate cancer clinical trials. Data were collected from 2016 through 2019 at 2 National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers; participants were Black and White men with intermediate-risk to high-risk prostate cancer. In mediation analysis, path models regressed willingness onto race and each potential mediator, simultaneously including direct paths from race to each mediator. Significant indirect effect sizes served as evidence for mediation.ExposuresRace was the primary exposure. Potential mediators included age, education, household income, perceived economic burden, pain/physical limitation, health literacy, general trust in physicians, and group-based medical suspicion.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the answer to a single question: "If you were offered a cancer clinical trial, would you be willing to hear more information about it?"ResultsA total of 205 participants were included (92 Black men and 113 White men), with a mean (range) age of 65.7 (45-89) years; 32% had a high school education or lower, and 27.5% had a household income of less than $40 000. Most (88.3%) reported being definitely or probably willing to discuss trials, but White participants were more likely to endorse this highest category of willingness than Black participants (82% vs 64%; χ22 = 8.81; P = .01). Compared with White participants, Black participants were younger (F1,182 = 8.67; P < .001), less educated (F1,182 = 22.79; P < .001), with lower income (F1,182 = 79.59; P < .001), greater perceived economic burden (F1,182 = 42.46; P < .001), lower health literacy (F1,184 = 9.84; P = .002), and greater group-based medical suspicion (F1,184 = 21.48; P < .001). Only group-based medical suspicion significantly mediated the association between race and willingness to discuss trials (indirect effect, -0.22; P = .002).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study of men with prostate cancer, most participants were willing to discuss trials, but Black men were significantly less willing than White men. Black men were more likely to believe that members of their racial group should be suspicious of the health care system, and this belief was associated with lower willingness to discuss trials. Addressing medical mistrust may improve equity in clinical research.

Project description:PurposeExisting definitions of high-risk prostate cancer consist of men who experience significant heterogeneity in outcomes. As such, criteria that identify a subpopulation of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk prostate cancer patients who are at very high risk (VHR) for poor survival outcomes following prostatectomy were recently developed at our institution and include the presence of any of the following disease characteristics: multiple NCCN high-risk factors, primary Gleason pattern 5 disease and/or ≥5 biopsy cores with Gleason sums of 8 to 10. Whether these criteria also apply to men undergoing definitive radiation is unclear, as is the optimal treatment regimen in these patients.Methods and materialsAll men consecutively treated with definitive radiation by a single provider from 1993 to 2006 and who fulfilled criteria for NCCN high-risk disease were identified (n=288), including 99 patients (34%) with VHR disease. Multivariate-adjusted competing risk regression models were constructed to assess associations between the VHR definition and biochemical failure (BF), distant metastasis (DM), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Multivariate-adjusted Cox regression analysis assessed the association of the VHR definition with overall mortality (OM). Cumulative incidences of failure endpoints were compared between VHR men and other NCCN high-risk men.ResultsMen with VHR disease compared to other NCCN high-risk men experienced a higher 10-year incidence of BF (54.0% vs 35.4%, respectively, P<.001), DM (34.9% vs 13.4%, respectively, P<.001), PCSM (18.5% vs 5.9%, respectively, P<.001), and OM (36.4% vs 27.0%, respectively, P=.04). VHR men with a detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration at the end of radiation (EOR) remained at high risk of 10-year PCSM compared to VHR men with an undetectable EOR PSA (31.0% vs 13.7%, respectively, P=.05).ConclusionsNCCN high-risk prostate cancer patients who meet VHR criteria experience distinctly worse outcomes following definitive radiation and long-term androgen deprivation therapy, particularly if an EOR PSA is detectable. Optimal use of local therapies for VHR patients should be explored further, as should novel agents.

Project description:BackgroundBlack men are more likely to die of prostate cancer (PCa) compared with white men. Factors ranging from genetics to neighborhood environment contribute to these disparities. However, unlike genetics, agnostic investigations that identify candidate variables from large-scale data, and that allow for empiric investigations into differential associations between neighborhood and PCa by race/ethnicity, to the authors' knowledge have not been well explored. Thus, herein, the authors built on their previously developed, empiric neighborhood-wide association study (NWAS) in white men and conducted a NWAS in black men to determine whether findings differed by race.MethodsPennsylvania Cancer Registry data were linked to US Census data. For the NWAS in non-Hispanic black men, the authors evaluated the association between 14,663 neighborhood census variables and advanced PCa (11 high-stage and/or high-grade cases and 8632 low-stage and/or low-grade cases), adjusting for age, diagnosis year, spatial correlation, and multiple testing. Odds ratios and 95% credible intervals were reported. Replication of NWAS findings across black and white races was assessed using Bayesian mixed effects models.ResultsFive variables related to housing (3 variables), education (1 variable), and employment and/or transportation (1 variable) were found to be significantly associated with advanced PCa in black men compared with 17 socioeconomic variables (mostly related to poverty and/or income) in white men. The top hit in black men was related to crowding in renter-occupied housing (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% credible interval, 1.001-1.12). Nine of 22 NWAS hits (4 of 5 hits in black men) were replicated across racial/ethnic groups.ConclusionsDifferent neighborhood variables, or "candidates," were identified across race-specific NWASs. These findings and empiric approaches warrant additional study and may inform PCa racial disparities, particularly future gene-environment studies aimed at identifying patients and/or communities at risk of advanced PCa.