Differences in Prognostic Factors and Survival among White Men and Black Men with Prostate Cancer, California, 1995–2004
ABSTRACT The authors conducted a study to determine whether differences in prostate cancer survival between White men and Black men are reduced or eliminated after accounting for differences in prognostic factors. Using population-based statewide cancer registry data, the authors analyzed data from a cohort of 122,375 non-Hispanic White men and Black men from California who were newly diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1995 and 2004 and followed through 2004. Compared with White men, Black men were characterized by younger age at diagnosis, more distant stage, less treatment with surgery or radiation therapy, higher tumor grades, lower neighborhood socioeconomic status, and more recent year of diagnosis. Adjusted only for age, the hazard ratio for prostate cancer death (Blacks vs. Whites) was 1.61 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.50, 1.72). Additional adjustment for potentially modifiable factors (stage and treatment) eliminated most of the racial difference in survival (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.18). The racial difference in survival was completely eliminated after further adjustment for other factors (grade, socioeconomic status, and year of diagnosis) (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.92, 1.06). Thus, the large difference in prostate cancer survival between White men and Black men was completely explained by known prognostic factors, with potentially modifiable disparities playing the largest role.
- SourceAvailable from: Daniel L Howard
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "While identifying and implementing tailored recruitment strategies are critical and underdeveloped, intentional involvement of community leaders and other community based participatory research strategies are also much needed areas for development with promise for reducing disparities in research participation. Though less commonly used, population-based registries are also used for study recruitment and are most often used to recruit research study participants that share a common characteristic such as illness             . Less is known about the use of registries designed specifically to increase minority participation in research studies. "
ABSTRACT: Introduction: Prevention and treatment standards are based on evidence obtained in behavioral and clinical research. However, racial and ethnic minorities remain relatively absent from the science that develops these standards. While investigators have successfully recruited participants for individual studies using tailored recruitment methods, these strategies require considerable time and resources. Research registries, typically developed around a disease or condition, serve as a promising model for a targeted recruitment method to increase minority participation in health research. This study assessed the tailored recruitment methods used to populate a health research registry targeting African-American community members. Methods: We describe six recruitment methods applied between September 2004 and October 2008 to recruit members into a health research registry. Recruitment included direct (existing studies, public databases, community outreach) and indirect methods (radio, internet, and email) targeting the general population, local universities, and African American communities. We conducted retrospective analysis of the recruitment by method using descriptive statistics, frequencies, and chi-square statistics. Results: During the recruitment period, 608 individuals enrolled in the research registry. The majority of enrollees were African American, female, and in good health. Direct and indirect methods were identified as successful strategies for subgroups. Findings suggest significant associations between recruitment methods and age, presence of existing health condition, prior research participation, and motivation to join the registry. Conclusions: A health research registry can be a successful tool to increase minority awareness of research opportunities. Multi-pronged recruitment approaches are needed to reach diverse subpopulations.Contemporary clinical trials 01/2013; 35(1). DOI:10.1016/j.cct.2013.01.001 · 1.94 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "" Formal " methods that account for competing risks, such as regression for cumulative incidence functions  or mixture models , are rarely used by epidemiologists. Of the over 700 original contributions that appeared in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, American Journal of Epidemiology, Epidemiology and the International Journal of Epidemiology in 2007, only three    used competing risks methods. When competing risks methods are used, the specific type of hazard ratio (HR) that is sought (i.e., the estimand) is often not clearly stated. "
ABSTRACT: To compare three ad hoc methods to estimate the marginal hazard of incident cancer acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) in a highly active antiretroviral therapy (1996-2006) relative to a monotherapy/combination therapy (1990-1996) calendar period, accounting for other AIDS events and deaths as competing risks. Among 1,911 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive men from the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study, 228 developed cancer AIDS and 745 developed competing risks in 14,202 person-years from 1990 to 2006. Method 1 censored competing risks at the time they occurred, method 2 excluded competing risks, and method 3 censored competing risks at the date of analysis. The age, race, and infection duration adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for cancer AIDS were similar for all methods (HR approximately 0.15). We estimated bias and confidence interval coverage of each method with Monte Carlo simulation. On average, across 24 scenarios, method 1 produced less-biased estimates than methods 2 or 3. When competing risks are independent of the event of interest, only method 1 produced unbiased estimates of the marginal HR, although independence cannot be verified from the data. When competing risks are dependent, method 1 generally produced the least-biased estimates of the marginal HR for the scenarios explored; however, alternative methods may be preferred.Journal of clinical epidemiology 10/2009; 63(4):459-67. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.003 · 3.42 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "These studies generally agree that SES does not entirely explain racial/ethnic differences in prostate cancer incidence [5, 10, 18]. However, findings have been mixed regarding the contribution of SES to survival differences between racial/ethnic groups [13–17, 19–21]. "
ABSTRACT: The racial/ethnic disparities in prostate cancer rates are well documented, with the highest incidence and mortality rates observed among African-Americans followed by non-Hispanic Whites, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific Islanders. Whether socioeconomic status (SES) can account for these differences in risk has been investigated in previous studies, but with conflicting results. Furthermore, previous studies have focused primarily on the differences between African-Americans and non-Hispanic Whites, and little is known for Hispanics and Asian/Pacific Islanders. To further investigate the relationship between SES and prostate cancer among African-Americans, non-Hispanic Whites, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific Islanders, we conducted a large population-based cross-sectional study of 98,484 incident prostate cancer cases and 8,997 prostate cancer deaths from California. Data were abstracted from the California Cancer Registry, a population-based surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) registry. Each prostate cancer case and death was assigned a multidimensional neighborhood-SES index using the 2000 US Census data. SES quintile-specific prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates and rate ratios were estimated using SEER*Stat for each race/ethnicity categorized into 10-year age groups. For prostate cancer incidence, we observed higher levels of SES to be significantly associated with increased risk of disease [SES Q1 vs. Q5: relative risk (RR) = 1.28; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.25-1.30]. Among younger men (45-64 years), African-Americans had the highest incidence rates followed by non-Hispanic Whites, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific Islanders for all SES levels. Yet, among older men (75-84 years) Hispanics, following African-Americans, displayed the second highest incidence rates of prostate cancer. For prostate cancer deaths, higher levels of SES were associated with lower mortality rates of prostate cancer deaths (SES Q1 vs. Q5: RR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.92-0.94). African-Americans had a twofold to fivefold increased risk of prostate cancer deaths in comparison to non-Hispanic Whites across all levels of SES. Our findings suggest that SES alone cannot account for the greater burden of prostate cancer among African-American men. In addition, incidence and mortality rates of prostate cancer display different age and racial/ethnic patterns across gradients of SES.Cancer Causes and Control 07/2009; 20(8):1431-40. DOI:10.1007/s10552-009-9369-0 · 2.74 Impact Factor