Prostate Cancer Disparities in Metastatic and Treatment Status for Hispanic Americans Based on Country of Origin Compared to Non-Hispanic Whites Using the National Cancer Database.

INTRODUCTION: Among Hispanic-American (HA) men, prostatic cancer (PCa) accounts for nearly one-quarter of the total cancer burden. We sought to identify differences in PCa presentation and treatment status for HA subgroups based on country/region of origin. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified patients with histologically confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma with reported race/ethnicity, clinical staging, Gleason score ≥ 6, and PSA level at diagnosis from 2010 to 2016. HAs were divided into 4 subgroups: Mexican, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and Central/South Americans. Non-Hispanic White (NHW) men were used as a reference group. Statistical analysis was derived from the Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables and χ2 test for categorical variables. Models were constructed to evaluate the association of Hispanic country of origin with metastatic presentation and treatment status. RESULTS: A total of 428,829 patients were included, with 5625 (1.3%) classified as HA. Within the Hispanic group, 2880 (51.2%) were Mexican, 999 (17.8%) Puerto Rican, 477 (8.5%) Cuban, and 1269 (22.6%) South/Central American. Mexican men presented with higher median PSA, more Gleason 8 to 10 disease, and higher rates of metastatic presentation compared to NHW and other HA subgroups (all, p < .01). Metastatic rates over the study period for Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and South/Central Americans were 6.4 (±1.2), 5.3 (±3.0), 3.2 (±2.0), and 4.6% (±1.7), respectively (p = .01). Treatment rates were 89.1, 89.6, 92.4, and 89.3% for Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and South/Central Americans, respectively (p = .19). Mexican men had higher odds of initial metastatic presentation (OR: 1.32; 95%CI: 1.07-1.63, p = .01) but lower odds of receiving treatment (0.68; 0.55-0.85, p < .01). CONCLUSION: Men of Mexican origin presented with more advanced PCa when compared to NHW and other Hispanic subgroups. Our results warrant further investigation into potential biological factors affecting Hispanic patients as well as the identification of treatment barriers for this vulnerable population.

Prevalence, overlap, and risk factors for Rome IV functional gastrointestinal disorders among college students in northern India.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: There is scarcity of data on prevalence, overlap, and risk factors for functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID) by Rome IV criteria. We evaluated these factors among medical, nursing, and humanities students. METHODS: Rome IV Diagnostic Questionnaire (for all FGIDs), Rome III questionnaire (for irritable bowel syndrome [IBS], functional diarrhea [FDr], and functional constipation [FC]), and questionnaires assessing demography, physical activity, anxiety, and depression were used. RESULTS: A total of 1309 college students were included (medical 425, nursing 390, humanities 494; mean age 20.5 ± 2.1 years; 36.5% males). Prevalence of Rome IV FGIDs was 26.9% (n = 352), significantly higher among females compared with males (32.3% vs. 17.6%; p < 0.001) and significantly higher among medical (34.4%) and nursing students (29.2%) compared with humanities students (18.6%) (p < 0.05). Most common FGIDs were functional dyspepsia (FD) (15.2%), IBS (6.2%), reflux hypersensitivity (3.5%), FDr (2.9%), FC (2.1%), and unspecified functional bowel disorder (2.1%). FGID overlap was present in 9.3%, most common being FD-IBS overlap (4.4%). With Rome III criteria, prevalence of IBS was higher (9.5%), while that of FDr (0.92%) and of FC (1.3%) were lower. On multivariate analysis, independent predictors for FGIDs were female gender, medical student, non-vegetarian diet, junk food, tea/coffee, poor physical activity, anxiety, and insomnia. CONCLUSION: Rome IV FGIDs were present among one-fourth of college students with preponderance among females and medical students. FD, IBS, and reflux hypersensitivity were the most common FGIDs. Rome IV criteria led to a reduction in IBS prevalence and increase in FDr and FC prevalence. Dietary factors, physical activity, anxiety, and insomnia affected FGID prevalence.