Urology practice · 2025
Disparities in Prostate Cancer-Specific Mortality in Incarcerated vs Nonincarcerated Patients in Michigan: A Statewide Retrospective Cohort Study.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mssika Adam, Robinson Benjamin, Tinsley Shane, Bertini Alessandro, Stephens Alex, Finocchiaro Alessio, Vigano Silvia, Perri Antonio, Lughezzani Giovanni, Buffi Nicolò, Sorce Gabriele, Ficarra Vincenzo, Salonia Andrea, Briganti Alberto, Montorsi Francesco, Sood Akshay, Rogers Craig, Abdollah Firas
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: With rising incarceration and cancer diagnosis rates in the United States, understanding the relationship between incarceration status and cancer outcomes is critical. Our study examined prostate cancer (PCa)-specific mortality (PCSM) disparities in incarcerated patients (IP) vs nonincarcerated patients (NP) in Michigan.
METHODS: The Michigan Department of Health & Human Services Database was screened for PCa (histology = 8140)-diagnosed patients between 2004 and 2015. IP and NP were cross-analyzed with demographic and clinical covariates. The cumulative incidence function and competing risks multivariable regression were used to examine incarceration impact on PCSM after accounting for all covariates.
RESULTS: In our cohort of 76,045 patients, 152 were IP. Compared with NP, IP were more likely to be younger (median 58.0 vs 67.0 years) and non-Hispanic Black (65.8% vs 16.0%), both P < .0001. IP had higher probability to be diagnosed with ≤ cT2 PCa (95.3% vs 88.5%; P < .0001), cN0 PCa (94.1% vs 86.8%; P < .01), and undergo surgery as first-course treatment (31.6% vs 24.4%; P = .02). Compared with NP, no difference was found in Gleason grade ≥ 8 (52.6% vs 51.4%; P = .9) and PSA (median 7.5 vs 5.9 ng/mL; P = .6). At 10 years, PCSM was 14.7% (95% CI: 7.0%-25.0%) in IP vs 11.4% (95% CI: 11.1%-11.7%) in NP (P = .2). At the multivariable analysis, IP had a 2.44-fold (95% CI: 1.53-3.88; P < .001) higher PCSM risk than NP.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite being diagnosed with PCa at a younger age and an earlier stage, IP showed a higher PCSM risk than NP. Further research is warranted to examine this difference.
METHODS: The Michigan Department of Health & Human Services Database was screened for PCa (histology = 8140)-diagnosed patients between 2004 and 2015. IP and NP were cross-analyzed with demographic and clinical covariates. The cumulative incidence function and competing risks multivariable regression were used to examine incarceration impact on PCSM after accounting for all covariates.
RESULTS: In our cohort of 76,045 patients, 152 were IP. Compared with NP, IP were more likely to be younger (median 58.0 vs 67.0 years) and non-Hispanic Black (65.8% vs 16.0%), both P < .0001. IP had higher probability to be diagnosed with ≤ cT2 PCa (95.3% vs 88.5%; P < .0001), cN0 PCa (94.1% vs 86.8%; P < .01), and undergo surgery as first-course treatment (31.6% vs 24.4%; P = .02). Compared with NP, no difference was found in Gleason grade ≥ 8 (52.6% vs 51.4%; P = .9) and PSA (median 7.5 vs 5.9 ng/mL; P = .6). At 10 years, PCSM was 14.7% (95% CI: 7.0%-25.0%) in IP vs 11.4% (95% CI: 11.1%-11.7%) in NP (P = .2). At the multivariable analysis, IP had a 2.44-fold (95% CI: 1.53-3.88; P < .001) higher PCSM risk than NP.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite being diagnosed with PCa at a younger age and an earlier stage, IP showed a higher PCSM risk than NP. Further research is warranted to examine this difference.