Oncologic outcomes among Black and White men with grade group 4 or 5 (Gleason score 8-10) prostate cancer treated primarily by radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to describe pathologic and short-term oncologic outcomes among Black and White men with grade group 4 or 5 prostate cancer managed primarily by radical prostatectomy. METHODS: This was a multi-institutional, observational study (2005-2015) evaluating radical prostatectomy outcomes by self-identified race. Descriptive analysis was performed via nonparametric statistical testing to compare baseline clinicopathologic data. Univariable and multivariable time-to-event analyses were performed to assess biochemical recurrence (BCR), metastasis, cancer-specific mortality (CSM), and overall survival between Black and White men. RESULTS: In total, 1662 men were identified with grade group 4 or 5 prostate cancer initially managed by radical prostatectomy. Black men represented 11.3% of the cohort (n = 188). Black men were younger, demonstrated a longer time from diagnosis to surgery, and were at a lower clinical stage (all P < .05). Black men had lower rates of pT3/4 disease (49.5% vs 63.5%; P < .05) but higher rates of positive surgical margins (31.6% vs 26.5%; P = .14) on pathologic evaluation. There was no difference in BCR, CSM, or overall survival over a median follow-up of 40.7 months. Black men had a lower 5-year cumulative incidence of metastasis-free survival (93.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 86.5%-97.0%) in comparison with White men (85.8%; 95% CI, 83.1%-88.0%), which did not persist in an age-adjusted analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Black and White men with high-grade prostate cancer at diagnosis demonstrated similar oncologic outcomes when they were managed by primary radical prostatectomy. Our findings suggest that racial disparities in prostate cancer mortality are not related to differences in the efficacy of extirpative therapy.

Surgical management of high-risk, localized prostate cancer.

High-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease that lacks clear consensus on its ideal management. Historically, non-surgical treatment was the preferred strategy, and several studies demonstrated improved survival among men with high-risk disease managed with the combination of radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) compared with ADT alone. However, practice trends in the past 10-15 years have shown increased use of radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection for primary management of high-risk, localized disease. Radical prostatectomy, as a primary monotherapy, offers the potential benefits of avoiding ADT, reducing rates of symptomatic local recurrence, enabling full pathological tumour staging and potentially reducing late adverse effects such as secondary malignancy compared with radiation therapy. Retrospective studies have reported wide variability in short-term (pathological) and long-term (oncological) outcomes of radical prostatectomy. Surgical monotherapy continues to be appropriate for selected patients, whereas in others the best treatment strategy probably involves a multimodal approach. Appropriate risk stratification utilizing clinical, pathological and potentially also genomic risk data is imperative in the initial management of men with prostate cancer. However, data from ongoing and planned prospective trials are needed to identify the optimal management strategy for men with high-risk, localized prostate cancer.

Defining Dysbiosis for a Cluster of Chronic Diseases.

The prevalence of many chronic diseases has increased over the last decades. It has been postulated that dysbiosis driven by environmental factors such as antibiotic use is shifting the microbiome in ways that increase inflammation and the onset of chronic disease. Dysbiosis can be defined through the loss or gain of bacteria that either promote health or disease, respectively. Here we use multiple independent datasets to determine the nature of dysbiosis for a cluster of chronic diseases that includes urinary stone disease (USD), obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and kidney disease, which often exist as co-morbidities. For all disease states, individuals exhibited a statistically significant association with antibiotics in the last year compared to healthy counterparts. There was also a statistically significant association between antibiotic use and gut microbiota composition. Furthermore, each disease state was associated with a loss of microbial diversity in the gut. Three genera, Bacteroides, Prevotella, and Ruminococcus, were the most common dysbiotic taxa in terms of being enriched or depleted in disease populations and was driven in part by the diversity of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) within these genera. Results of the cross-sectional analysis suggest that antibiotic-driven loss of microbial diversity may increase the risk for chronic disease. However, longitudinal studies are needed to confirm the causative effect of diversity loss for chronic disease risk.

A Contemporary Analysis of Outcomes and Modifiable Risk Factors of Ethnic Disparities in Kidney Transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide a contemporary analysis of longitudinal kidney transplant outcomes and to evaluate potential causes of ethnic disparities among African American (AA) and Caucasian American (CA) patients undergoing kidney transplantation at our institution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 1400 patients were identified who underwent kidney transplantation from 2003 to 2013 from a large, academic institution in Cleveland, OH. Relevant recipient and donor demographic and clinical covariates were obtained from an institutional transplant database. Simple descriptive statistics and comparative survival analyses were performed to assess overall survival and graft survival. RESULTS: The final cohort was comprised of 341 AA and 1059 CA patients. AAs were less likely to receive a living donor transplant (27.6% vs. 57.2%, p < 0.001) compared to CAs. Overall patient survival did not significantly differ between the two groups even when stratified by ethnicity. However, AAs had a significantly lower rate of graft survival (p < 0.001). On stratified analysis, there was no difference in the rate of graft survival among AAs and CAs who received living donor grafts. On univariate analysis, AAs demonstrated higher rates of immunosuppression non-compliance and chronic rejection (both p < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, AA recipient ethnicity (HR 1.56, p = 0.047), recipient history of diabetes (HR 1.67, p < 0.001), and AA donor ethnicity (HR 1.56, p = 0.047) were significantly associated with graft failure. CONCLUSION: AAs undergoing deceased donor renal transplantation demonstrated lower graft survival compared to CAs. Conversely, this disparity did not exist among AAs undergoing living donor transplantation. AAs had higher rates of deceased donor transplantation, immunosuppression non-compliance, chronic rejection, and diabetes. Opportunities exist to use patient education, alternative immunosuppression regimens, and living transplantation to close the ethnic disparity in renal allograft survival.