An exploratory analysis of the impact of area-level exposome on geographic disparities in aggressive prostate cancer.

Numbers of aggressive prostate cancer (aPC) cases are rising, but only a few risk factors have been identified. In this study, we introduce a systematic approach to integrate geospatial data into external exposome research using aPC cases from Pennsylvania. We demonstrate the association between several area-level exposome measures across five Social Determinants of Health domains (SDOH) and geographic areas identified as having elevated odds of aPC. Residential locations of Pennsylvania men diagnosed with aPC from 2005 to 2017 were linked to 37 county-/tract-level SDOH exosome measures. Variable reduction processes adopted from neighborhood-wide association study along with Bayesian geoadditive logistic regression were used to identify areas with elevated odds of aPC and exposome factors that significantly attenuated the odds and reduced the size of identified areas. Areas with significantly higher odds of aPC were explained by various SDOH exposome measures, though the extent of the reduction depended on geographic location. Some areas were associated with race (social context), health insurance (access), or tract-level poverty (economics), while others were associated with either county-level water quality or a combination of factors. Area-level exposome measures can guide future patient-level external exposome research and help design targeted interventions to reduce local cancer burden.

Defining aggressive prostate cancer: a geospatial perspective.

BACKGROUND: Spatial analysis can identify communities where men are at risk for aggressive prostate cancer (PCan) and need intervention. However, there are several definitions for aggressive PCan. In this study, we evaluate geospatial patterns of 3 different aggressive PCan definitions in relation to PCan-specific mortality and provide methodologic and practical insights into how each definition may affect intervention targets. METHODS: Using the Pennsylvania State Cancer Registry data (2005-2015), we used 3 definitions to assign "aggressive" status to patients diagnosed with PCan. Definition one (D1, recently recommended as the primary definition, given high correlation with PCan death) was based on staging criteria T4/N1/M1 or Gleason score ≥ 8. Definition two (D2, most frequently-used definition in geospatial studies) included distant SEER summary stage. Definition three (D3) included Gleason score ≥ 7 only. Using Bayesian spatial models, we identified geographic clusters of elevated odds ratios for aggressive PCan (binomial model) for each definition and compared overlap between those clusters to clusters of elevated hazard ratios for PCan-specific mortality (Cox regression). RESULTS: The number of "aggressive" PCan cases varied by definition, and influenced quantity, location, and extent/size of geographic clusters in binomial models. While spatial patterns overlapped across all three definitions, using D2 in binomial models provided results most akin to PCan-specific mortality clusters as identified through Cox regression. This approach resulted in fewer clusters for targeted intervention and less sensitive to missing data compared to definitions that rely on clinical TNM staging. CONCLUSIONS: Using D2, based on distant SEER summary stage, in future research may facilitate consistency and allow for standardized comparison across geospatial studies.