Introduction: Previous studies by our group and others have demonstrated the importance of sociodemographic factors in cancer-related outcomes. The identification of these factors has led to novel approaches to the care of the high-risk cancer patient, specifically in the adoption of clinical interventions that convey similar benefits as favorable sociodemographic characteristics. This study examined the importance of marital status and race as prognostic indicators in men with prostate cancer.
Methods: This report is a meta-analysis of 3,570 patients with prostate cancer treated in three prospective RTOG clinical trials. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the survival rate and the cumulative incidence method was used to analyze biochemical failure rate. Hazard ratios were calculated for all covariates using either the Cox or Fine and Gray's proportional hazards model or logistic regression model with associated 95% confidence intervals and p values.
Results: Hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) for single status compared to married status was 1.36 (95% CI, 1.2 to 1.53). OS HR for non-White compared to White patients was 1.05 (CI 0.92 to 1.21). In contrast, the disease-free survival (DFS) HR and biochemical failure (BF) HR were both not significantly different neither between single and married patients nor between White patients and non-White patients. Median time to death for married men was 5.68 years and for single men was 4.73 years. Median time for DFS for married men was 7.25 years and for single men was 6.56 years. Median time for BF for married men was 7.81 years and for single men was 7.05 years.
Conclusions: Race was not associated with statistically significant differences in this analysis. Congruent with our previous work in other cancer sites, marital status predicted improved prostate cancer outcomes including overall survival.
Implications For Cancer Survivors: Prostate cancer is the most common visceral cancer in men in the USA. The stratification of prostate cancer risk is currently modeled solely on pathologic prognostic factors including PSA and Gleason Score. Independent of these pathologic prognostic factors, our paper describes the central sociodemographic factor of being single as a negative prognostic indicator. Single men are at high risk of poorer outcomes after prostate cancer treatment. Intriguingly, in our group of patients, race was not a significant prognostic factor. The findings in this paper add to the body of work that describes important sociodemographic prognostic factors that are currently underappreciated in patients with cancer. Future steps will include the validation of these findings in prospective studies, and the incorporation of clinical strategies that identify and compensate for sociodemographic factors that predict for poorer cancer outcomes.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-011-1219-4 | DOI Listing |
Urologie
January 2025
Klinik für Urologie, Campus Lübeck, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Deutschland.
This article provides a comprehensive overview of the current treatment options for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) following the failure of first-line therapy. Although significant progress has been made in the primary treatment of hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, the management of mCRPC remains a clinical challenge. The article outlines the diagnostic criteria for mCRPC, which can be confirmed through biochemical progression and imaging techniques.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFUrologie
January 2025
Klinik für Urologie, Uro-Onkologie, roboter-assistierte und spezielle urologische Chirurgie, Uniklinik Köln, Kerpener Str. 62, 50927, Köln, Deutschland.
Introduction: Prostate cancer guidelines recommend molecular analysis of biomaterial following resistance to first-line systemic therapy in order to identify druggable mutations. We report on our results of molecular analysis of tissue specimens via next generation sequencing (NGS) in men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
Patients And Methods: In all, 311 mCRPC patients underwent NGS analysis from biopsy samples of progressive metastatic lesions or archival radical prostatectomy specimens.
Radiol Imaging Cancer
January 2025
From the Department of Radiology (A.C., A.N.Y., R.E., C.H., G.L., M.M., E.B.J., A.L.C., B.G., G.S.K., A.O.), Sanford J. Grossman Center of Excellence in Prostate Imaging and Image Guided Therapy (A.C., A.N.Y., M.M., A.L.C., B.G.), Department of Surgery, Section of Urology (G.G., L.F.R., P.K.M., S.E.), Department of Pathology (T.A.), and Department of Public Health Sciences (M.G.), University of Chicago, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC 2026, Chicago, IL 60637.
Purpose To evaluate the use of an automated hybrid multidimensional MRI (HM-MRI)-based tool to prospectively identify prostate cancer targets before MRI/US fusion biopsy in comparison with Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System (PI-RADS)-based multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) evaluation by expert radiologists. Materials and Methods In this prospective clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov registration no.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFInt J Urol
January 2025
Department of Urology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma, Japan.
Cancer Rep (Hoboken)
January 2025
Uro-Oncology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Background: Current approach to clinically suspicious biopsy-naïve men consists performing prostate MRI, followed by combined systematic (TRUS-Bx) and MRI-Ultrasound fusion biopsy (MRI-TBx) in those with PIRADS score ≥ 3. Researchers have attempted to determine who benefits from each biopsy method, but the results do not support the safe use of one method alone. This study aims to determine the optimal approach in biopsy-naïve men, according to their PSA levels.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!