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.

Racial differences in knowledge, attitudes, and sources of information about germline cancer genetic testing in the U.S.A.: An analysis of the health information National Trends Survey System.

PURPOSE: To understand racial disparities in germline cancer genetic testing and the role of prior knowledge, attitudes, and sources of information. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey 5 (HINTS 5) was conducted between February 24th and June 15th, 2020. The study aimed to investigate knowledge and receipt of genetic testing, attitudes toward the importance of genetic testing in preventing, detecting, and treating cancer, and information sources of genetic testing in the United States of America. RESULTS: Non-Hispanic Black (NHB) and Hispanic race/ethnicity were associated with lower odds of being informed about genetic testing, whereas those of NHB race were more likely to endorse the importance of genetic testing in cancer prevention and treatment. Regarding sources of information about genetic testing: Non-Hispanic Asians were less likely to be informed about genetic testing from television (Mean Predicted Probability (MPP) 0.38 95%CI; 0.21-0.55, (Adjusted Risk Difference) ARD vs. Non-Hispanic White (NHW); -0.228, p = 0.01), NHB were less likely to report being informed about genetic testing from social media (MPP 0.27 95%CI; 0.20-0.34, ARD vs. NHW; -0.139, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: NHB and Hispanic groups face unequal access to information about genetic testing. There are significant race-based differences in information sources. These differences could be used to promote equitable access to cancer genetic testing.

Smoking status among cancer patients by specialty: A U.S. nationwide representative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Persistence in tobacco use among cancer survivors has been associated with a multitude of clinicodemographic factors. However, there is a paucity of understanding regarding the role the healthcare professional's specialty plays in tobacco cessation in tobacco-related cancer survivors. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from cancer survivors with a smoking history using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) database to examine differences in the proportion of patients continuing tobacco use among patients with a diagnosis of cancer segregated by cancer site specialty over the 2016-2020 period. We accounted for complex survey design and used sampling weights to obtain a nationwide representative sample. We employed modified Poisson regression adjusting for age, gender, education, income, race, marital status, and medical specialty. RESULTS: We analyzed 19,855 cancer survivors with a current or past history of tobacco use, of whom 5222 (26,3%) self-reported to be current smokers. Patients with urological and gynecological tobacco-related malignancies had a higher relative risk (RR) of being current smokers with a RR of 1.30 (95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.51) and 1.25 (95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.39) respectively. Malignant Hematology had the lowest RR of smoking status among all other specialties RR 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.21). CONCLUSIONS: Continuing smoking rates among tobacco-related cancer survivors were different between specialties. One in four cancer survivors were current smokers; this emphasizes health professionals' paramount role in tobacco cessation counseling.

Is Segmental Ureterectomy Associated with Inferior Survival for Localized Upper-Tract Urothelial Carcinoma of the Ureter Compared to Radical Nephroureterectomy?

Segmental ureterectomy (SU) is an alternative to radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) in the treatment of upper-tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) of the ureter. SU generally preserves renal function, at the expense of less intensive cancer control. We aim to assess whether SU is associated with inferior survival compared to RNU. Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we identified patients diagnosed with localized UTUC of the ureter between 2004-2015. We used a propensity-score-overlap-weighted (PSOW) multivariable survival model to compare survival following SU vs. RNU. PSOW-adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves were generated and we performed a non-inferiority test of overall survival. A population of 13,061 individuals with UTUC of the ureter receiving either SU or RNU was identified; of these, 9016 underwent RNU and 4045 SU. Factors associated with decreased likelihood of receiving SU were female gender (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.88; p < 0.001), advanced clinical T stage (cT4) (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30-0.88; p = 0.015), and high-grade tumor (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86; p < 0.001). Age greater than 79 years was associated with increased probability of undergoing SU (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.00-1.38; p = 0.047). There was no statistically significant difference in OS between SU and RNU (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.04; p = 0.538). SU was not inferior to RNU in PSOW-adjusted Cox regression analysis (p < 0.001 for non-inferiority). In weighted cohorts of individuals with UTUC of the ureter, the use of SU was not associated with inferior survival compared to RNU. Urologists should continue to utilize SU in appropriately selected patients.

Racial Differences in Germline Genetic Testing for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Testing for pathogenic variants can aid in oncologic risk stratification and identification of targeted therapies. Despite known disparities in access to prostate cancer (PCa) care, little has been written about access to germline genetic testing (GGT) for Black men and other historically marginalized populations. This systematic review sought to delineate racial/ethnic disparities in GGT for PCa. METHODS: This systematic review identified articles published from January 1996 through May 2021 in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. We included studies that reported rates of GGT in men with PCa in the United States by race/ethnicity as reflective of routine clinical care or research. A narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Of 4,309 unique records, 91 studies examining 50 unique study populations met inclusion criteria. Of these, four populations included men who received GGT through routine clinical care, accounting for 4,415 men (72.6% White and 7.2% Black). The other 46 populations included men who received GGT as part of a research study, accounting for 30,824 men (64.3% White and 21.6% Black). Of these 46 research populations, 19 used targeted methods to increase recruitment from a specific demographic. CONCLUSION: Most studies that report GGT rates by race/ethnicity are in research settings. Many of these studies used targeted recruitment methods and subsequently have a greater proportion of Black men than clinical and US population-based studies. Other historically marginalized populations are not well represented. There remains a knowledge gap regarding the extent of racial disparities in the use of GGT, particularly in the clinical setting.