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.

Perineal Urethrostomy for Complex Urethral Strictures: Long-Term Patient-Reported Outcomes from a Reconstructive Referral Center and a Scoping Literature Review.

PURPOSE: There is a paucity of long-term objective and patient-reported outcomes after definitive perineal urethrostomy for complex urethral strictures. Our objective is to determine comprehensive long-term success of perineal urethrostomy with our 15-year experience at a reconstructive referral center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent perineal urethrostomy between 2009 and 2023 were identified. A comprehensive long-term follow-up was conducted, evaluating both objective outcomes (retreatment-free survival) and subjective outcomes through the use of validated questionnaires. Additionally, to provide further context for our findings, we conducted a scoping review of all studies reporting outcomes following perineal urethrostomy. RESULTS: Among 76 patients, 55% had iatrogenic strictures, with 82% previously undergoing urethral interventions. At a median follow-up of 55 months, retreatment-free survival was 84%, with 16% of patients experiencing perineal urethrostomy recurrent stenosis. Patient-reported outcomes revealed a generally satisfactory voiding function (Urethral Stricture Surgery patient-reported outcome measure Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms score) and continence (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form), with median scores of 4 (range 0-24) and 0 (range 0-21), but with bimodal distributions of sexual function scores (median International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function domain: 3.5; median Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Scale: 21). Treatment satisfaction was very high with a median International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Satisfaction outcome score of 21 (range 0-24). The scoping review revealed varying success rates ranging from 51% to 95%, highlighting difficulties in comparison due to variable success definitions and patient case mix. CONCLUSIONS: Perineal urethrostomy provides effective treatment for complex anterior urethral strictures, with high patient satisfaction, preserved continence function, and favorable voiding outcomes. It presents a viable option for older and comorbid patients, especially after thorough counseling on expected outcomes and potential risks.

The effect of limited english proficiency on prostate-specific antigen screening in American men.

PURPOSE: To evaluate how limited English proficiency (LEP) impacts the prevalence of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in a contemporary, nationally representative cohort of men in the USA. METHODS: The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey was utilized to identify the prevalence of PSA screening between 2013 and 2016 among men ≥ 55. Men who speak a language other than English at home were stratified by self-reported levels of English proficiency (men who speak English very well, well, not well, or not at all). Survey weights were applied, and groups were compared using the adjusted Wald test. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify predictors of PSA screening adjusting for patient-level covariates. RESULTS: The cohort included 2,889 men, corresponding to a weighted estimate of 4,765,682 men. 79.6% of men who speak English very well reported receiving at least one lifetime PSA test versus 58.4% of men who do not speak English at all (p < 0.001). Men who reported not speaking English at all had significantly lower prevalence of PSA screening (aOR 0.56; 95% CI 0.35-0.91; p = 0.019). Other significant predictors of PSA screening included older age, income > 400% of the federal poverty level, insurance coverage, and healthcare utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Limited English proficiency is associated with significantly lower prevalence of PSA screening among men in the USA. Interventions to mitigate disparities in prostate cancer outcomes should account for limited English proficiency among the barriers to guideline-concordant care.

Impact of COVID-19 on the time to counseling and treatment of prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: This study investigates how the COVID-19 pandemic (CP) impacted the timeline between initial diagnosis (ID) of prostate carcinoma and subsequent therapy consultation (TC) or radical prostatectomy (RP) due to the implementation of a "minimal contact concept," which postponed clinical examinations until the day of admission. METHODS: We analyzed patient data from a tertiary care center from 2018 to September 2021. The focus was on comparing the time intervals from ID to TC and from ID to RP before and during the CP. RESULTS: Of 12,255 patients, 6,073 (61.6%) were treated before and 3,791 (38.4%) during the CP. The median time from ID to TC reduced from 37 days (IQR: 21 - 58d) pre-CP to 32 days (IQR: 20 - 50d) during CP (p < 0.001). Similarly, the time from ID to RP decreased from 98 days (IQR: 70 - 141d) to 75 days (IQR: 55 - 108d; p < 0.001) during the CP. There was a significant decrease in low-risk tumor cases at ID (18.9% vs. 21.4%; p = 0.003) and post-RP (4% vs. 6.7%; p < 0.001) during the CP. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic facilitated more timely treatment of prostate cancer, suggesting potential benefits for both low-risk and aggressive tumor management through expedited clinical procedures.

Smoking characteristics and years since quitting smoking of US adults diagnosed with lung and bladder cancer: A national health and nutrition examination survey analysis.

PURPOSE: Smoking is a recognized risk factor for bladder BC and lung cancer LC. We investigated the enduring risk of BC after smoking cessation using U.S. national survey data. Our analysis focused on comparing characteristics of LC and BC patients, emphasizing smoking status and the latency period from smoking cessation to cancer diagnosis in former smokers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from the National Health and Examination Survey (2003-2016), identifying adults with LC or BC history. Smoking status (never, active, former) and the interval between quitting smoking and cancer diagnosis for former smokers were assessed. We reported descriptive statistics using frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and median with interquartile ranges (IQR) for continuous variables. RESULTS: Among LC patients, 8.9% never smoked, 18.9% active smokers, and 72.2% former smokers. Former smokers had a median interval of 8 years (IQR 2-12) between quitting and LC diagnosis, with 88.3% quitting within 0-19 years before diagnosis. For BC patients, 26.8% never smoked, 22.4% were active smokers, and 50.8% former smokers. Former smokers had a median interval of 21 years (IQR 14-33) between quitting and BC diagnosis, with 49.3% quitting within 0-19 years before diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: BC patients exhibit a prolonged latency period between smoking cessation and cancer diagnosis compared to LC patients. Despite smoking status evaluation in microhematuria, current risk stratification models for urothelial cancer do not incorporate it. Our findings emphasize the significance of long-term post-smoking cessation surveillance and advocate for integrating smoking history into future risk stratification guidelines.

Exploring preventive care practices among unvaccinated individuals in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Building on a Canadian study associating unvaccinated individuals to increased car accidents, we examined the relationship between COVID-19 vaccination status and US preventive care practices. METHODS: We queried the 2021 National Health Interview Survey. First, we fitted a model to identify respondent-level factors associated with receipt of at least one COVID-19 vaccination. Second, we fitted a survey-weighted logistic regression model adjusted for respondent-level characteristics to examine whether the receipt of at least one COVID-19 vaccination predicted the receipt of preventive care services. Preventive care services assessed included serum cholesterol, glucose, and blood pressure measurements, as well as guideline-concordant cancer screening including breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening. RESULTS: Factors predicting receipt of COVID-19 vaccination were age (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) 1.03; 95 % confidence interval (CI) [1.03-1.03]), Hispanic (aOR 1.25; 95 % CI [1.08-1.44]), and non-Hispanic Asian (aOR 3.52; 95 % CI [2.74-4.52]) ethnicity/race, and history of cancer (aOR 1.61; 95 % CI [1.13-2.30]). Unvaccinated respondents were less likely to have received serum cholesterol (aOR 0.69; 95 % CI [0.50-0.70), serum glucose (aOR 0.65; 95 % CI [0.56-0.75]), or blood pressure measurements (aOR 0.47; 95 % CI [0.33-0.66]); and were less likely to have received breast cancer (aOR 0.35; 95 % CI [0.25-0.48]), colorectal cancer (aOR 0.52; 95 % CI [0.46-0.60]) and prostate cancer screening (aOR 0.61; 95 % CI [0.48-0.76]). There was no significant association between unvaccinated respondents receiving cervical cancer screening (aOR 0.96; 95 % CI [0.81-1.13]; p = 0.616). CONCLUSION: Non-receipt of COVID-19 vaccination was associated with non-receipt of preventive care services including cancer screening. Further studies are needed to assess if this association is due to system-level factors or reflects a general distrust of medical preventive care amongst this population.

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.

The Association of County-level Prostate-specific Antigen Screening with Metastatic Prostate Cancer and Prostate Cancer Mortality.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There exists ongoing debate about the benefits and harms of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer. This study sought to evaluate the association of county-level PSA screening rates with county-level incidence of metastatic prostate cancer and prostate cancer mortality in the USA. METHODS: This ecological study used data from the 2004-2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to build a multilevel mixed-effect model with poststratification using US Census data to estimate county-level PSA screening rates for all 3143 US counties adjusted for age, race, ethnicity, and county-level poverty rates. The exposure of interest was average county-level PSA screening rate from 2004 to 2012, defined as the proportion of men aged 40-79 yr who underwent PSA screening within the prior 2 yr. The primary outcomes were county-level age-adjusted incidence of regional/distant prostate cancer during 2015-2019 and age-adjusted prostate cancer mortality during 2016-2020. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 416 221 male BRFSS respondents aged 40-79 yr met the inclusion criteria and were used in the multilevel mixed-effect model. The model was poststratified using 63.4 million men aged 40-79 yr from all 3143 counties in the 2010 Decennial Census. County-level estimated PSA screening rates exhibited geographic variability and were pooled at the state level for internal validation with direct BRFSS state-level estimates, showing a strong correlation with Pearson correlation coefficients 0.77-0.90. A 10% higher county-level probability of PSA screening in 2004-2012 was associated with a 14% lower county-level incidence of regional/distant prostate cancer in 2015-2019 (rate ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-0.87, p < 0.001) and 10% lower county-level prostate cancer mortality in 2016-2020 (rate ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.89-0.91, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: In this population-based ecological study of all US counties, higher PSA screening rates were associated with a lower incidence of regional/distant prostate cancer and lower prostate cancer mortality at extended follow-up. PATIENT SUMMARY: US counties with higher rates of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening had significantly lower rates of metastatic prostate cancer and prostate cancer mortality in subsequent years. These data may inform shared decision-making regarding PSA screening for prostate cancer.

Adequacy of prostate cancer prevention and screening recommendations provided by an artificial intelligence-powered large language model.

PURPOSE: We aimed to assess the appropriateness of ChatGPT in providing answers related to prostate cancer (PCa) screening, comparing GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. METHODS: A committee of five reviewers designed 30 questions related to PCa screening, categorized into three difficulty levels. The questions were formulated identically for both GPTs three times, varying the prompts. Each reviewer assigned a score for accuracy, clarity, and conciseness. The readability was assessed by the Flesch Kincaid Grade (FKG) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE). The mean scores were extracted and compared using the Wilcoxon test. We compared the readability across the three different prompts by ANOVA. RESULTS: In GPT-3.5 the mean score (SD) for accuracy, clarity, and conciseness was 1.5 (0.59), 1.7 (0.45), 1.7 (0.49), respectively for easy questions; 1.3 (0.67), 1.6 (0.69), 1.3 (0.65) for medium; 1.3 (0.62), 1.6 (0.56), 1.4 (0.56) for hard. In GPT-4 was 2.0 (0), 2.0 (0), 2.0 (0.14), respectively for easy questions; 1.7 (0.66), 1.8 (0.61), 1.7 (0.64) for medium; 2.0 (0.24), 1.8 (0.37), 1.9 (0.27) for hard. GPT-4 performed better for all three qualities and difficulty levels than GPT-3.5. The FKG mean for GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 answers were 12.8 (1.75) and 10.8 (1.72), respectively; the FRE for GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 was 37.3 (9.65) and 47.6 (9.88), respectively. The 2nd prompt has achieved better results in terms of clarity (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: GPT-4 displayed superior accuracy, clarity, conciseness, and readability than GPT-3.5. Though prompts influenced the quality response in both GPTs, their impact was significant only for clarity.

Impact of smoking status on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in cancer survivors.

Introduction: The Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) often declines among cancer survivors due to many factors. Some cancer patients who smoke before the cancer diagnosis continue this harmful habit, potentially contributing to a more significant decline in their HRQoL. Therefore, this study investigates the association between smoking status and HRQoL in cancer survivors. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study utilizing self-reported cancer history from 39,578 participants of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) database, leveraging 2016 and 2020 year questionaries. A multidimensional composite outcome was created to assess HRQoL, integrating four distinct dimensions - general health, mental health, physical health, and activity limitations. After accounting for the complex survey design, logistic regression models were used to analyze the association between smoking status and poor HRQoL, adjusting for demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related confounders. Results: Our study found that, after adjusting for potential confounders, current smokers exhibited a significantly poorer HRQoL than never smokers (OR 1.65, 95%CI 1.40-1.93). Furthermore, former smokers showed a poorer HRQoL than never smokers; however, this association was not as strong as current smokers (OR 1.22, 95%CI 1.09-1.38). Conclusion: Our findings highlight the adverse association of smoking with poor HRQoL in cancer survivors, underscoring the importance of healthcare professionals prioritizing smoking cessation and providing tailored interventions to support this goal.

Smoking characteristics and years since quitting smoking of US adults diagnosed with lung and bladder cancer: A national health and nutrition examination survey analysis

ABSTRACT Purpose: Smoking is a recognized risk factor for bladder BC and lung cancer LC. We investigated the enduring risk of BC after smoking cessation using U.S. national survey data. Our analysis focused on comparing characteristics of LC and BC patients, emphasizing smoking status and the latency period from smoking cessation to cancer diagnosis in former smokers. Materials and Methods: We analyzed data from the National Health and Examination Survey (2003-2016), identifying adults with LC or BC history. Smoking status (never, active, former) and the interval between quitting smoking and cancer diagnosis for former smokers were assessed. We reported descriptive statistics using frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and median with interquartile ranges (IQR) for continuous variables. Results: Among LC patients, 8.9% never smoked, 18.9% active smokers, and 72.2% former smokers. Former smokers had a median interval of 8 years (IQR 2-12) between quitting and LC diagnosis, with 88.3% quitting within 0-19 years before diagnosis. For BC patients, 26.8% never smoked, 22.4% were active smokers, and 50.8% former smokers. Former smokers had a median interval of 21 years (IQR 14-33) between quitting and BC diagnosis, with 49.3% quitting within 0-19 years before diagnosis. Conclusions: BC patients exhibit a prolonged latency period between smoking cessation and cancer diagnosis compared to LC patients. Despite smoking status evaluation in microhematuria, current risk stratification models for urothelial cancer do not incorporate it. Our findings emphasize the significance of long-term post-smoking cessation surveillance and advocate for integrating smoking history into future risk stratification guidelines.