Investigating the pattern of prostate specific antigen screening among E-cigarette smokers within the behavioral risk factor surveillance system.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: E-cigarettes use has recently increased, even among older individuals quitting smoking. Though past studies suggest tobacco smokers may avoid cancer screening, the relationship between e-cigarette uses and preventive health behaviors like prostate specific antigen screening is uncertain. We assessed the relationship between self-reported e-cigarette smoking and prostate specific antigen screening utilization among US adults with a history of e-cigarette use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included men aged 50-69 years, who provided responses regarding PSA screening receipt and smoking status, from Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2020 and 2022 surveys. Primary outcome was PSA screening receipt. Multivariable regression model was performed to investigate the association between smoking status (never-smokers, current or former e-cigarette smokers, current or former tobacco smokers) and PSA screening. RESULTS: We included a weighted population of 8.1 million men aged 50-69. 2.3 million (28.3%) received PSA screening. 3.9 million (48.2%) were never-smokers. 1.3 million (16.6%) were from e-cigarettes smokers group, and 2.9 million (35.2%) were from tobacco smokers group. E-cigarettes smokers were less likely to receive PSA screening within last 2 years (0.76 [0.66-0.88]) than never-smokers. No significant difference in PSA screening was detected between never-smokers and tobacco smokers (0.91 [0.82-1.02]). E-cigarette smokers were less likely to receive PSA screening within the selected time frame (0.84 [0.72-0.97]) than tobacco smokers. When examining potential mediation by primary care visits, e-cigarette smokers were less likely to have had a check-up visit in past 2 years than tobacco smokers (0.77 [0.65-0.92]). CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarette smokers were less likely to undergo PSA screening than never-smokers and tobacco smokers, possibly due to reduced use of primary care services.

Postprostatectomy Radiotherapy Timing and Long-Term Health-Related Quality of Life.

Importance: The association between radiotherapy (RT) timing after radical prostatectomy and long-term patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in men with prostate cancer is unknown. Objective: To measure long-term HRQOL in men with prostate cancer up to 15 years after prostatectomy with or without RT and examine whether early vs late postprostatectomy RT is associated with differences in sexual, urinary, and bowel HRQOL. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective, multicenter, longitudinal cohort analysis using HRQOL data from the PROST-QA (2003-2006) and RP2 consortium (2010-2013) studies was conducted. Men with localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy were included. Data were analyzed between May 8, 2023, and March 1, 2024. The study was conducted in 12 high-volume academic medical centers in the US. Exposures: Men were stratified based on receipt and timing of postprostatectomy RT: prostatectomy only, early RT (<12 months), and late RT (≥12 months). Main Outcomes and Measures: Longitudinal sexual, incontinence, urinary irritation, bowel, and hormonal/vitality HRQOL were measured via the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite at baseline; months 2, 6, and 12; and annually thereafter. Treatment groups were compared using multivariable linear mixed-effects models of change in longitudinal domain scores. Pad use for incontinence was measured longitudinally among men receiving postprostatectomy RT. Results: A total of 1203 men were included in the study: prostatectomy only (n = 1082), early RT (n = 57), and late RT (n = 64). Median age for the entire cohort was 60.5 (range, 38.8-79.7) years, and 1075 men (92.0%) were White. Median follow-up was 85.6 (IQR, 35.8-117.2) months. Compared with men receiving prostatectomy alone, those receiving postprostatectomy RT had significantly greater decreases in sexual, incontinence, and urinary irritation HRQOL. However, timing of postprostatectomy RT, specifically early vs late, was not associated with a long-term decrease in any HRQOL domain. There was evidence of improved recovery of sexual, continence, and urinary irritation scores among men receiving early RT compared with those receiving late RT after prostatectomy. Before the start of postprostatectomy RT, 39.3% of men in the early RT cohort and 73.4% of men in the late RT cohort were pad-free. By the sixth visit post-RT, 67.4% in the early RT cohort and 47.6% in the late RT cohort were pad-free. Conclusions and Relevance: In this multicenter, prospective analysis, postprostatectomy RT appeared to be negatively associated with long-term HRQOL across all domains. However, receipt of early vs late postprostatectomy RT may result in similar long-term HRQOL outcomes.

When is prostate cancer really cancer?

Prostate cancer (PC) is a major cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, with far more diagnoses than deaths annually. Recent discussions have challenged whether Grade Group 1 (GG1) PC should be labeled "cancer" due to its indolent nature. To address this question, an international symposium convened stakeholders from various fields. We summarize key discussion points: autopsy studies reveal GG1 is so common in aging males as to be perhaps a normal aspect of aging. Pure GG1 has no capacity to metastasize. Modern diagnostic pathways focus on detecting higher-grade disease, explicitly omitting biopsy if GG 2 or higher is not suspected, so GG1 has effectively become an "incidentaloma." Recent spatial transcriptomics of prostate sections identifies a continuum of genomic changes-including alterations characteristic of malignancy in histologically normal regions, so the designation of cancer based entirely on conventional pathology findings increasingly seems arbitrary at least to an extent. Pathologists discussed heterogeneity and diagnostic challenges, suggesting "acinar neoplasm" as one possible alternative label. GG1 should not be considered "normal," and absolutely requires ongoing active surveillance; whether patients would adhere to surveillance absent a cancer diagnosis is unknown. Patient perspectives highlighted the adverse effects of overtreatment and the burden of a cancer diagnosis. The anticipated impact on screening and treatment varies across health-care systems, but many believe public health would on balance greatly improve if GG1-along with lesions in other organs with no capacity to cause symptoms or threaten life-were labeled something other than "cancer." Ultimately, our goal is to reduce PC mortality while minimizing harms associated with both overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Trends and Safety of Same-Day Discharge for Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: a Comparison between the Pre-Pandemic and Pandemic Periods from the National Cancer Database.

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the use of same-day discharge (SDD) for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) between the "Pre-pandemic" and "Pandemic" periods and investigate SDD impact on mortality and readmissions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined data from the National Cancer Database on men receiving RALP in the "Pre-pandemic" (2018-2019) and "Pandemic" (2020) periods. We analyzed the differences in patient and hospital characteristics between SDD and non-SDD patients. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the likelihood of SDD during "Pandemic" versus "Pre-pandemic" periods. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was utilized to assess the impact of SDD on 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and 30-day readmissions, adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Out of 111,117 men, 8,997 (8%) received SDD. Patients with more comorbidities, non-private insurance, and high-risk prostate cancer reported lower SDD rates (p<0.001). Higher SDD rates were observed at academic facilities and those in the top RALP volume quartile (p<0.001). Patients who underwent RALP during the "Pandemic" period had increased odds of SDD compared to those receiving RALP in the "Pre-pandemic" period (aOR 1.37; 95%CI 1.31-1.45; p<0.001). When comparing SDD and non-SDD patient outcomes, after IPTW adjustment, there was no difference in the odds of 30-day mortality (aOR 0.98; 95%CI 0.47-2.01; p=0.95), 90-day mortality (aOR 1.09; 95%CI 0.60-1.97; p=0.76), or 30-day readmissions (aOR 0.90; 95%CI 0.76-1.06, p=0.21). CONCLUSION: SDD for RALP increased steadily after pandemic. Identifying factors and necessary resources to standardize SDD for RALP will be crucial for its widespread adoption in the coming years.

Novel Intraprostatic MR-Guided Implantation of Multidrug-Eluting Microdevice for Testing of Systemic Therapy Agents In Situ: Proof of Concept in Intermediate-Risk and High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess safety and feasibility of percutaneous MR-guided placement of an implantable microdevice (IMD) to evaluate in situ intratumor response to multiple pharmacologic agents in men with intermediate-risk and high-risk localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Biocompatible IMDs measuring 750 µm in diameter and 5 mm in length were prepared with 20 reservoirs containing candidate drug and drug combinations including second-generation androgen inhibitors, PARP inhibitors, PD-1 inhibitors, and conventional chemotherapy. Men with intermediate-risk or high-risk localized prostate cancer and MRI-visible lesions were enrolled. Up to 4 IMDs were placed using a transperineal approach into MRI-visible tumors 2 days before planned radical prostatectomy. After radical prostatectomy, the IMDs and a small segment of surrounding tumor tissue were removed and sectioned, stained, and analyzed for tissue drug response by a variety of pharmacodynamic markers. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were enrolled: 7 (50%) with intermediate-risk and 7 (50%) with high-risk localized prostate cancer. A total of 53 IMDs were implanted (mean 3.8 per patient), and 49 IMDs (92%) were successfully retrieved. All men underwent uncomplicated robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy and bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection 2 days after IMD placement. There were no severe adverse events. Pathological examination of the tissues adjacent to the IMDs demonstrated differential drug response within patients and between patients. Limitations include small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: A multidrug IMD can be safely placed percutaneously into MRI-visible lesions before radical prostatectomy, enabling assessment of tumor-specific local response to multiple agents simultaneously within the tumor's normal stromal environment to guide targeted systemic therapy.

Cluster effect for SNP-SNP interaction pairs for predicting complex traits.

Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) interactions are the key to improving polygenic risk scores. Previous studies reported several significant SNP-SNP interaction pairs that shared a common SNP to form a cluster, but some identified pairs might be false positives. This study aims to identify factors associated with the cluster effect of false positivity and develop strategies to enhance the accuracy of SNP-SNP interactions. The results showed the cluster effect is a major cause of false-positive findings of SNP-SNP interactions. This cluster effect is due to high correlations between a causal pair and null pairs in a cluster. The clusters with a hub SNP with a significant main effect and a large minor allele frequency (MAF) tended to have a higher false-positive rate. In addition, peripheral null SNPs in a cluster with a small MAF tended to enhance false positivity. We also demonstrated that using the modified significance criterion based on the 3 p-value rules and the bootstrap approach (3pRule + bootstrap) can reduce false positivity and maintain high true positivity. In addition, our results also showed that a pair without a significant main effect tends to have weak or no interaction. This study identified the cluster effect and suggested using the 3pRule + bootstrap approach to enhance SNP-SNP interaction detection accuracy.

Acute BRCAness Induction and AR Signaling Blockage through CDK12/7/9 Degradation Enhances PARP Inhibitor Sensitivity in Prostate Cancer.

Current treatments for advanced prostate cancer (PCa) primarily target androgen receptor (AR)-pathways. However, the emergence of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and resistance to AR signaling inhibitors (ARSI) remains a significant clinical challenge. This study introduces BSJ-5-63, a novel triple degrader targeting cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) CDK12, CDK7, and CDK9, with potential to transform CRPC therapy. BSJ-5-63 effectively downregulates homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes, including BRCA1 and BRCA2, through CDK12 degradation, and attenuates AR signaling through CDK7 and CDK9 degradation, further enhancing its therapeutic impact. Importantly, BSJ-5-63 induces a "BRCAness" state that persists for a significant duration, enabling sequential combination therapy with PARP inhibitors (PARPis) while potentially minimizing drug-related toxicity and resistance. In both in vitro and in vivo studies, BSJ-5-63 exhibited potent antiproliferative effects in both AR-positive and AR-negative CRPC models. This study presents a promising multi-pronged approach for CRPC treatment, addressing both DNA repair mechanisms and AR signaling, with the potential to benefit a wide range of patients regardless of their BRCA1/2 mutational status. SIGNIFICANCE: This study introduces BSJ-5-63, a triple degrader designed to target CDK12, CDK7, and CDK9, making a significant advancement in CRPC therapy. The distinctive mechanism of BSJ-5-63 involves downregulating HRR genes and inhibiting AR signaling, thereby inducing a BRCAness state. This enhances sensitivity to PARP inhibition, effectively addressing ARSI resistance and improving the overall efficacy of treatment. The development of BSJ-5-63 represents a promising therapeutic approach, with the potential to benefit a broad spectrum of CRPC patients.

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging utilization and its relationship with advanced prostate cancer detection.

BACKGROUND: The rise in advanced prostate cancer has coincided with increased use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), leading to the hypothesis that this increase in surveillance registries is an artifact of more sensitive imaging tools. We assessed the association between regional variation in prostate MRI and advanced prostate cancer diagnoses. METHODS: We utilized SEER-Medicare data (2004-2015), including men > 65 diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. The predictor variable was the utilization of prostate MRI in each hospital referral region (HRR, representing regional healthcare markets). We compared the proportion of disease recorded as locally advanced or of regional risk group (cT3, cT4, and cN1) which would plausibly have been detected by prostate MRI. We conducted adjusted multivariable analysis and performed correlation analysis with Spearman rank coefficient at the level of the HRR. Sensitivity analysis for years 2011 to 2015 was conducted. RESULTS: Of 98,921 men diagnosed, 4.01% had locally advanced or regional disease. The median prostate MRI utilization rate was 4.58% (IQR [3.03%, 8.12%]). Adjusted multivariable analysis revealed no statistically significant correlation between MRI utilization and proportion of advanced prostate cancer (aOR = 1.01, 95% CI, [0.99,1.03]) in each region. The correlation between MRI usage and advanced diagnosis was not significant (Spearman Ρ = 0.09, P = 0.4). Sensitivity analysis conducted between 2011 and 2015 showed similar results (aOR = 1.008, 95% CI, [0.989, 1.027]; Spearman Ρ = 0.16, P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: During our study period, HRR-level utilization of MRI was not associated with higher incidences of advanced prostate cancer. This suggests the rising advanced prostate cancer diagnoses observed in this period are unlikely an artifact of greater sensitivity of modern imaging tests, but potentially due to other factors such as changes in screening or risk factors. With increased utilization and evolving techniques in recent years, the association between MRI and advanced prostate cancer detection warrants continued monitoring.

Early Prostate Cancer Deaths Among Men With Higher vs Lower Genetic Risk.

Importance: Prostate cancer, a leading cause of cancer death among men, urgently requires new prevention strategies, which may involve targeting men with an underlying genetic susceptibility. Objective: To explore differences in risk of early prostate cancer death among men with higher vs lower genetic risk to inform prevention efforts. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used a combined analysis of genotyped men without prostate cancer at inclusion and with lifestyle data in 2 prospective cohort studies in Sweden and the US, the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study (MDCS) and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS), followed up from 1991 to 2019. Data were analyzed between April 2023 and April 2024. Exposures: Men were categorized according to modifiable lifestyle behaviors and genetic risk. A polygenic risk score above the median or a family history of cancer defined men at higher genetic risk (67% of the study population); the remaining men were categorized as being at lower genetic risk. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prostate cancer death analyzed using time-to-event analysis estimating hazard ratios (HR), absolute risks, and preventable deaths by age. Results: Among the 19 607 men included for analysis, the median (IQR) age at inclusion was 59.0 (53.0-64.7) years (MDCS) and 65.1 (58.0-71.8) years (HPFS). During follow-up, 107 early (by age 75 years) and 337 late (after age 75 years) prostate cancer deaths were observed. Compared with men at lower genetic risk, men at higher genetic risk had increased rates of both early (HR, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.82-5.84) and late (HR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.70-3.01) prostate cancer death, and higher lifetime risks of prostate cancer death (3.1% vs 1.3% [MDCS] and 2.3% vs 0.6% [HPFS]). Men at higher genetic risk accounted for 94 of 107 early prostate cancer deaths (88%), of which 36% (95% CI, 12%-60%) were estimated to be preventable through adherence to behaviors associated with a healthy lifestyle (not smoking, healthy weight, high physical activity, and a healthy diet). Conclusions and Relevance: In this 20-year follow-up study, men with a genetic predisposition accounted for the vast majority of early prostate cancer deaths, of which one-third were estimated to be preventable. This suggests that men at increased genetic risk should be targeted in prostate cancer prevention strategies.

Insulin resistance during androgen deprivation therapy in men with prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in prostate cancer (PCa) has been associated with development of insulin resistance. However, the predominant site of insulin resistance remains unclear. METHODS: The ADT & Metabolism Study was a single-center, 24-week, prospective observational study that enrolled ADT-naive men without diabetes who were starting ADT for at least 24 weeks (ADT group, n = 42). The control group comprised men without diabetes with prior history of PCa who were in remission after prostatectomy (non-ADT group, n = 23). Prevalent diabetes mellitus was excluded in both groups using all three laboratory criteria defined in the American Diabetes Association guidelines. All participants were eugonadal at enrollment. The primary outcome was to elucidate the predominant site of insulin resistance (liver or skeletal muscle). Secondary outcomes included assessments of body composition, and hepatic and intramyocellular fat. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 12, and 24 weeks. RESULTS: At 24 weeks, there was no change in hepatic (1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.10 to 4.43; p = .47) or skeletal muscle (-3.2; 95% CI, -7.07 to 0.66; p = .10) insulin resistance in the ADT group. No increase in hepatic or intramyocellular fat deposition or worsening of glucose was seen. These changes were mirrored by those observed in the non-ADT group. Men undergoing ADT gained 3.7 kg of fat mass. CONCLUSIONS: In men with PCa and no diabetes, 24 weeks of ADT did not change insulin resistance despite adverse body composition changes. These findings should be reassuring for treating physicians and for patients who are being considered for short-term ADT.

Healthy lifestyle and prostate cancer risk in the Million Veteran Program.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to assess the impact of healthy lifestyle on prostate cancer (PCa) risk in a diverse population. METHODS: Data for 281,923 men from the Million Veteran Program (MVP), a nationwide, health system-based cohort study, were analyzed. Self-reported information at enrollment included smoking status, exercise, diet, family history of PCa, and race/ethnicity. Body mass index (BMI) was obtained from clinical records. Genetic risk was assessed via a validated polygenic score. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess associations with PCa outcomes. RESULTS: After accounting for ancestry, family history, and genetic risk, smoking was associated with an increased risk of metastatic PCa (hazard ratio [HR], 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.64-2.02; p < 10-16) and fatal PCa (HR, 2.73; 95% CI, 2.36-3.25; p < 10-16). Exercise was associated with a reduced risk of fatal PCa (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98; p = .03). Higher BMI was associated with a slightly reduced risk of fatal PCa, and diet score was not independently associated with any end point. Association with exercise was strongest among those who had nonmetastatic PCa at MVP enrollment. Absolute reductions in the risk of fatal PCa via lifestyle factors were greatest among men of African ancestry (1.7% for nonsmokers vs. 6.1% for smokers) or high genetic risk (1.4% for nonsmokers vs. 4.3% for smokers). CONCLUSIONS: Healthy lifestyle is minimally related to the overall risk of developing PCa but is associated with a substantially reduced risk of dying from PCa. In multivariable analyses, both exercise and not smoking remain independently associated with reduced metastatic and fatal PCa.

Prostate Cancer Foundation Screening Guidelines for Black Men in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, Black men are at highest risk for being diagnosed with and dying from prostate cancer. Given this disparity, we examined relevant data to establish clinical prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening guidelines for Black men in the United States. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search identified 1848 unique publications for screening. Of those screened, 287 studies were selected for full-text review, and 264 were considered relevant and form the basis for these guidelines. The numbers were reported according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. RESULTS: Three randomized controlled trials provided Level 1 evidence that regular PSA screening of men 50 to 74 years of age of average risk reduced metastasis and prostate cancer death at 16 to 22 years of follow-up. The best available evidence specifically for Black men comes from observational and modeling studies that consider age to obtain a baseline PSA, frequency of testing, and age when screening should end. Cohort studies suggest that discussions about baseline PSA testing between Black men and their clinicians should begin in the early 40s, and data from modeling studies indicate prostate cancer develops 3 to 9 years earlier in Black men compared with non-Black men. Lowering the age for baseline PSA testing to 40 to 45 years of age from 50 to 55 years of age, followed by regular screening until 70 years of age (informed by PSA values and health factors), could reduce prostate cancer mortality in Black men (approximately 30% relative risk reduction) without substantially increasing overdiagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines recommend that Black men should obtain information about PSA screening for prostate cancer. Among Black men who elect screening, baseline PSA testing should occur between ages 40 and 45. Depending on PSA value and health status, annual screening should be strongly considered. (Supported by the Prostate Cancer Foundation.).

A Model for Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Prostate MRI and Risk Factors.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a predictive model for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) using prostate MRI and patient risk factors. METHODS: In total, 960 men who underwent MRI from 2015 to 2019 and biopsy either 6 months before or 6 months after MRI were identified. Men diagnosed with csPCa were identified, and csPCa risk was modeled using known patient factors (age, race, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level) and prostate MRI findings (location, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score, extraprostatic extension, dominant lesion size, and PSA density). csPCa was defined as Gleason score sum ≥ 7. Using a derivation cohort, a multivariable logistic regression model and a point-based scoring system were developed to predict csPCa. Discrimination and calibration were assessed in a separate independent validation cohort. RESULTS: Among 960 MRI reports, 552 (57.5%) were from men diagnosed with csPCa. Using the derivation cohort (n = 632), variables that predicted csPCa were Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System scores of 4 and 5, the presence of extraprostatic extension, and elevated PSA density. Evaluation using the validation cohort (n = 328) resulted in an area under the curve of 0.77, with adequate calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow P = .58). At a risk threshold of >2 points, the model identified csPCa with sensitivity of 98.4% and negative predictive value of 78.6% but prevented only 4.3% potential biopsies (0-2 points; 14 of 328). At a higher threshold of >5 points, the model identified csPCa with sensitivity of 89.5% and negative predictive value of 70.1% and avoided 20.4% of biopsies (0-5 points; 67 of 328). CONCLUSIONS: The point-based model reported here can potentially identify a vast majority of men at risk for csPCa, while avoiding biopsy in about 1 in 5 men with elevated PSA levels.

Estimating the impact of enhanced care at minority-serving hospitals on disparities in the treatment of breast, prostate, lung, and colon cancers.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to quantify disparities in cancer treatment delivery between minority-serving hospitals (MSHs) and non-MSHs for breast, prostate, nonsmall cell lung, and colon cancers from 2010 to 2019 and to estimate the impact of improving care at MSHs on national disparities. METHODS: Data from the National Cancer Database (2010-2019) identified patients who were eligible for definitive treatments for the specified cancers. Hospitals in the top decile by minority patient proportion were classified as MSHs. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for patient and hospital characteristics compared the odds of receiving definitive treatment at MSHs versus non-MSHs. A simulation was used to estimate the increase in patients receiving definitive treatment if MSH care matched the levels of non-MSH care. RESULTS: Of 2,927,191 patients from 1330 hospitals, 9.3% were treated at MSHs. MSHs had significant lower odds of delivering definitive therapy across all cancer types (adjusted odds ratio: breast cancer, 0.83; prostate cancer, 0.69; nonsmall cell lung cancer, 0.73; colon cancer, 0.81). No site of care-race interaction was significant for any of the cancers (p > .05). Equalizing treatment rates at MSHs could result in 5719 additional patients receiving definitive treatment over 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings underscore systemic disparities in definitive cancer treatment delivery between MSHs and non-MSHs for breast, prostate, nonsmall cell lung, and colon cancers. Although targeted improvements at MSHs represent a critical step toward equity, this study highlights the need for integrated, system-wide efforts to address the multifaceted nature of racial and ethnic health disparities. Enhancing care at MSHs could serve as a pivotal strategy in a broader initiative to achieve health care equity for all.

Agent orange exposure and prostate cancer risk in the million veteran program.

BACKGROUND: The US government considers veterans to have been exposed to Agent Orange if they served in Vietnam while the carcinogen was in use, and these veterans are often deemed at high risk of prostate cancer (PCa). Here, we assess whether presumed Agent Orange exposure is independently associated with increased risk of any metastatic or fatal PCa in a diverse Veteran cohort still alive in the modern era (at least 2011), when accounting for race/ethnicity, family history, and genetic risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants in the Million Veteran Program (MVP; enrollment began in 2011) who were on active duty during the Vietnam War era (August 1964-April 1975) were included (n = 301,470). Agent Orange exposure was determined using the US government definition. Genetic risk was assessed via a validated polygenic hazard score. Associations with age at diagnosis of any PCa, metastatic PCa, and death from PCa were assessed via Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION: On univariable analysis, exposure to Agent Orange was not associated with increased PCa (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00-1.04, p = 0.06), metastatic PCa (HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.91-1.05, p = 0.55), or fatal PCa (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.79-1.09, p = 0.41). When accounting for race/ethnicity and family history, Agent Orange exposure was independently associated with slightly increased risk of PCa (HR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.04-1.09, <10-6) but not with metastatic PCa (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.98-1.15, p = 0.10) or PCa death (HR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.83-1.23, p = 0.09). Similar results were found when accounting for genetic risk. Agent Orange exposure history may not improve modern PCa risk stratification.

Provider Perceptions of an Electronic Health Record Prostate Cancer Screening Tool.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a focus group to assess the attitudes of primary care physicians (PCPs) toward prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-screening algorithms, perceptions of using decision support tools, and features that would make such tools feasible to implement. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team (primary care, urology, behavioral sciences, bioinformatics) developed the decision support tool that was presented to a focus group of 10 PCPs who also filled out a survey. Notes and audio-recorded transcripts were analyzed using Thematic Content Analysis. RESULTS: The survey showed that PCPs followed different guidelines. In total, 7/10 PCPs agreed that engaging in shared decision-making about PSA screening was burdensome. The majority (9/10) had never used a decision aid for PSA screening. Although 70% of PCPs felt confident about their ability to discuss PSA screening, 90% still felt a need for a provider-facing platform to assist in these discussions. Three major themes emerged: (1) confirmatory reactions regarding the importance, innovation, and unmet need for a decision support tool embedded in the electronic health record; (2) issues around implementation and application of the tool in clinic workflow and PCPs' own clinical bias; and (3) attitudes/reflections regarding discrepant recommendations from various guideline groups that cause confusion. CONCLUSION: There was overwhelmingly positive support for the need for a provider-facing decision support tool to assist with PSA-screening decisions in the primary care setting. PCPs appreciated that the tool would allow flexibility for clinical judgment and documentation of shared decision-making. Incorporation of suggestions from this focus group into a second version of the tool will be used in subsequent pilot testing.

Impact of Family History and Germline Genetic Risk Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms on Long-Term Outcomes of Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Family history and germline genetic risk single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been separately shown to stratify lifetime risk of prostate cancer. Here, we evaluate the combined prognostic value of family history of prostate and other related cancers and germline risk SNPs among patients with favorable-risk prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1367 participants from the prospective Health Professionals Follow-up Study diagnosed with low- or favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer from 1986 to 2017 underwent genome-wide SNP genotyping. Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate the association between family history, specific germline risk variants, and a 269 SNP polygenic risk score with prostate cancer‒specific death. RESULTS: Family history of prostate, breast, and/or pancreatic cancer was observed in 489 (36%) participants. With median follow-up from diagnosis of 14.9 years, participants with favorable-risk prostate cancer with a positive family history had a significantly higher risk of prostate cancer‒specific death (HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.15-3.32, P = .014) compared to those without any family history. The rs2735839 (19q13) risk allele was associated with prostate cancer‒specific death (HR 1.81 per risk allele, 95% CI 1.04-3.17, P = .037), whereas the polygenic risk score was not. Combined family history and rs2735839 risk allele were each associated with an additive risk of prostate cancer‒specific death (HR 1.78 per risk factor, 95% CI 1.25-2.53, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Family history of prostate, breast, or pancreatic cancer and/or a 19q13 germline risk allele are associated with an elevated risk of prostate cancer‒specific death among favorable-risk patients. These findings have implications for how family history and germline genetic risk SNPs should be factored into clinical decision-making around favorable-risk prostate cancer.

A Provider-Facing Decision Support Tool for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to pilot test an electronic health record-embedded decision support tool to facilitate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening discussions in the primary care setting. METHODS: We pilot-tested a novel decision support tool that was used by 10 primary care physicians (PCPs) for 6 months, followed by a survey. The tool comprised (1) a risk-stratified algorithm, (2) a tool for facilitating shared decision-making (Simple Schema), (3) three best practice advisories (BPAs: <45, 45-75, and >75 years), and (4) a health maintenance module for scheduling automated reminders about PSA rescreening. RESULTS: All PCPs found the tool feasible, acceptable, and clear to use. Eight out of ten PCPs reported that the tool made PSA screening conversations somewhat or much easier. Before using the tool, 70% of PCPs felt confident in their ability to discuss PSA screening with their patient, and this improved to 100% after the tool was used by PCPs for 6 months. PCPs found the BPAs for eligible (45-75 years) and older men (>75 years) more useful than the BPA for younger men (<45 years). Among the 10 PCPs, 60% found the Simple Schema to be very useful, and 50% found the health maintenance module to be extremely or very useful. Most PCPs reported the components of the tool to be at least somewhat useful, with 10% finding them to be very burdensome. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of the tool, which is notable given the marked low acceptance of existing tools. All PCPs reported that they would consider continuing to use the tool in their clinic and were likely or very likely to recommend the tool to a colleague.