Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: James D. Brooks x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Christopher J. Magnani, Kevin Li, Tina Seto, Kathryn M. McDonald, Douglas W. Blayney, James D. Brooks and Tina Hernandez-Boussard

ABSTRACT

Background: Most patients with prostate cancer are diagnosed with low-grade, localized disease and may not require definitive treatment. In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against prostate cancer screening to address overdetection and overtreatment. This study sought to determine the effect of guideline changes on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and initial diagnostic stage for prostate cancer. Patients and Methods: A difference-in-differences analysis was conducted to compare changes in PSA screening (exposure) relative to cholesterol testing (control) after the 2012 USPSTF guideline changes, and chi-square test was used to determine whether there was a subsequent decrease in early-stage, low-risk prostate cancer diagnoses. Data were derived from a tertiary academic medical center’s electronic health records, a national commercial insurance database (OptumLabs), and the SEER database for men aged ≥35 years before (2008–2011) and after (2013–2016) the guideline changes. Results: In both the academic center and insurance databases, PSA testing significantly decreased for all men compared with the control. The greatest decrease was among men aged 55 to 74 years at the academic center and among those aged ≥75 years in the commercial database. The proportion of early-stage prostate cancer diagnoses (<T2) decreased across age groups at the academic center and in the SEER database. Conclusions: In primary care, PSA testing decreased significantly and fewer prostate cancers were diagnosed at an early stage, suggesting provider adherence to the 2012 USPSTF guideline changes. Long-term follow-up is needed to understand the effect of decreased screening on prostate cancer survival.

Full access

Daphne Y. Lichtensztajn, John T. Leppert, James D. Brooks, Sumit A. Shah, Weiva Sieh, Benjamin I. Chung, Scarlett L. Gomez and Iona Cheng

Background: The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology recommend definitive therapy for all men with high-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa) who have a life expectancy >5 years or who are symptomatic. However, the application of these guidelines may vary among ethnic groups. We compared receipt of guideline-concordant treatment between Latino and non-Latino white men in California. Methods: California Cancer Registry data were used to identify 2,421 Latino and 8,636 non-Latino white men diagnosed with high-risk localized PCa from 2010 through 2014. The association of clinical and sociodemographic factors with definitive treatment was examined using logistic regression, overall and by ethnicity. Results: Latinos were less likely than non-Latino whites to receive definitive treatment before (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71–0.88) and after adjusting for age and tumor characteristics (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75–0.95). Additional adjustment for sociodemographic factors eliminated the disparity. However, the association with treatment differed by ethnicity for several factors. Latino men with no health insurance were considerably less likely to receive definitive treatment relative to insured Latino men (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.23–0.49), an association that was more pronounced than among non-Latino whites (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47–0.83). Intermediate-versus high-grade disease was associated with lower odds of definitive treatment in Latinos (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59–0.97) but not non-Latino whites. Younger age and care at NCI-designated Cancer Centers were significantly associated with receipt of definitive treatment in non-Latino whites but not in Latinos. Conclusions: California Latino men diagnosed with localized high-risk PCa are at increased risk for undertreatment. The observed treatment disparity is largely explained by sociodemographic factors, suggesting it may be ameliorated through targeted outreach, such as that aimed at younger and underinsured Latino men.