Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening in Smokers: A Comprehensive Analysis Using a National Behavioral Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Cigarette smoking is associated with higher-risk prostate cancer at the time of diagnosis and increased overall and prostate cancer‒specific mortality. Previous studies indicate smokers are less likely to undergo PSA screening. Herein we investigate the association between smoking and PSA screening using a nationally representative US survey. We hypothesize that smokers are less likely to undergo guideline-concordant PSA screening. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of men aged 55 to 69 who responded to the cigarette smoking and PSA screening questions of the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey. Adjusted prevalence and adjusted risk differences were calculated using complex weighted multivariable Poisson regression modeling. RESULTS: We identified 58,996 individuals who qualified for analysis. PSA screening prevalence was 39% (95% CI: 39%-40%) nationally, 42% (95% CI: 41%-44%) for never smokers, 42% (95% CI: 39%-40%) for former smokers, and 27% (95% CI: 25%-29%) for current smokers, including 27% (95% CI: 24%-29%) for daily smokers and 29% (95% CI: 24%-33%) for nondaily smokers. Compared to never smokers, the adjusted relative risk for undergoing PSA screening was 0.81 for current smokers (95% CI: 0.75-0.88, P < .01) and 0.99 for former smokers (95% CI: 0.94-1.03, P = .53). CONCLUSIONS: Current smokers are less likely to undergo recommended PSA screening, but former smokers are screened at similar rates as never smokers. As delays in diagnosis may substantially contribute to worse prostate cancer outcomes, targeted interventions to increase screening in this population may yield significant effects.

Oncologic Outcome of the Extent of Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection During Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Network Analysis.

CONTEXT: Some authors propose extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) to enhance diagnostic and therapeutic outcomes in patients with localized prostate cancer. However, recent evidence found no difference in biochemical recurrence (BCR). OBJECTIVE: To stratify and analyze available evidence on ePLND and its impact on BCR in patients with localized prostate cancer. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We systematically reviewed the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies up to November 2023. We identified original articles that presented statistical comparisons through Cox regressions reported as hazard ratio (HR) or survival curve data reported as Kaplan-Meier curve differences in BCR in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and stratified by the extent of lymph node dissection for localized prostate cancer. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 12 studies, with two being randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The RCTs showed no benefit of ePLND with an HR of 1.03 ([0.92, 1.14], p = 0.61). A combined analysis with the ten retrospective studies revealed a notable reduction in BCR with an HR of 0.68 ([0.52, 0.88], p = 0.003). A subgroup analysis based on the extent of dissection demonstrated that studies focusing on the more conservative extended template of dissection did not show significant BCR benefit (HR 0.97 [0.72, 1.32], p = 0.86). In contrast, dissections that expanded the anatomical extent showed decreased BCR (HR 0.56 [0.41, 0.75], p < 0.0001). A Bayesian network analysis highlights significant differences in BCR reduction between different dissection approaches, indicating the potential benefits of specific dissection templates. CONCLUSIONS: Available literature on the extent of pelvic lymph node dissection needs to be improved in quality and varying definitions of the ePLND template. Dissection of the common iliac nodes may be beneficial. PATIENT SUMMARY: There is a potential benefit in removing more lymph nodes during radical prostatectomy. However, more research is needed to determine whether this strategy benefits certain patient groups.

The national utilization of nonoperative management for small renal masses over 10 years.

BACKGROUND: Management of small renal masses often involves a nonoperative approach, but there is a paucity of information about the use and associated predictors of such approaches. This study aimed to determine the trends in and predictors of use of nonoperative management of small renal masses. METHODS: Using data from the National Cancer Database for localized small renal masses (N0/M0, cT1a) diagnosed between 2010 and 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional study. Nonoperative management was defined as expectant management (active surveillance or watchful waiting) or focal ablation. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) were calculated using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of the 156 734 patients included, 10.5% underwent expectant management, and 13.9% underwent focal ablation. Later year of diagnosis was associated with a higher likelihood of nonoperative management. In 2020, the odds of receiving expectant management and focal ablation were 90% (AOR = 1.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.71 to 2.11) and 44% (AOR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.31 to 1.57) higher, respectively, than in 2010. Black patients had increased odds of expectant management (AOR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.39 to 1.55) but decreased odds of focal ablation (AOR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.88 to 0.99). CONCLUSION: Over the decade, the use nonoperative management of small renal masses increased, with expectant management more frequently used than focal ablation among Black patients. Possible explanations include race-based differences in physicians' risk assessments and resource allocation. Adjusting for Black race in calculations for glomerular filtration rate could influence the differential uptake of these techniques through deflated glomerular filtration rate calculations. These findings highlight the need for research and policies to ensure equitable use of less invasive treatments in small renal masses.