Cigarette smoking and prostate cancer aggressiveness among African and European American men.

PURPOSE: Smoking is a modifiable lifestyle factor that has not been established as a prostate cancer risk factor, nor emphasized in prostate cancer prevention. Studies have shown that African American (AA) smokers have a poorer cancer prognosis than European Americans (EAs), while having a lower prevalence of heavy smoking. We examined the relationship between cigarette smoking and prostate cancer aggressiveness and assessed racial differences in smoking habits on the probability of high-aggressive prostate cancer. METHODS: Using data from the North Carolina-Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (n = 1,279), prostate cancer aggressiveness was defined as high or low based on Gleason scores, serum prostate-specific antigen levels, and tumor stage. Cigarette smoking was categorized as current, former, or never smokers. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Self-reported current (OR = 1.99; 95% CI 1.30-3.06) smoking was associated with high-aggressive prostate cancer relative to never smokers. When stratified by self-reported race, the odds of having high-aggressive cancer increased among AA current (OR = 3.58; 95% CI 2.04-6.28) and former smokers (OR = 2.21; 95% CI 1.38-3.53) compared to AA never smokers, but the odds were diminished among the EA stratum (Pself-reported race x smoking status = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Cigarette smoking is associated with prostate cancer aggressiveness, a relationship modulated by self-reported race. Future research is needed to investigate types of cigarettes smoked and metabolic differences that may be contributing to the racial disparities observed.

Increased Utilization of Low-Dose CT for Lung Cancer Screening at an Arkansas Community Oncology Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose CT (LDCT) is underused in Arkansas for lung cancer screening, a rural state with a high incidence of lung cancer. The objective was to determine whether offering free LDCT increased the number of high-risk individuals screened in a rural catchment area. METHODS: There were 5,402 patients enrolled in screening at Highlands Oncology, a community oncology clinic in Northwest Arkansas, from 2013 to 2020. Screenings were separated into time periods: period 1 (10 months for-fee), period 2 (10 months free with targeted advertisements and primary care outreach), and period 3 (62 months free with only primary care outreach). In all, 5,035 high-risk participants were eligible for analysis based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Enrollment rates, incidence densities (IDs), Cox proportional hazard models, and Kaplan-Meier curves were performed to investigate differences between enrollment periods and high-risk groups. RESULTS: Patient volume increased drastically once screenings were offered free of charge (period 1 = 4.6 versus period 2 = 66.0 and period 3 = 69.8 average patients per month). Incidence density per 1,000 person-years increased through each period (IDPeriod 1 = 17.2; IDPeriod 2 = 20.8; IDPeriod 3 = 25.5 cases). Cox models revealed significant differences in lung cancer risk between high-risk groups (P = .012) but not enrollment periods (P = .19). Kaplan-Meier lung cancer-free probabilities differed significantly between high-risk groups (log-rank P = .00068) but not enrollment periods (log-rank P = .18). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that eligible patients are more receptive to free LDCT screening, despite most insurances not having a required copay for eligible patients.