Research ExplorerPublicationsComparison of Mexican-American vs Caucasian prostate cancer ...

Comparison of Mexican-American vs Caucasian prostate cancer active surveillance candidates

Standard

Comparison of Mexican-American vs Caucasian prostate cancer active surveillance candidates. / Collà Ruvolo, Claudia; Stolzenbach, Lara Franziska; Nocera, Luigi; Deuker, Marina; Mistretta, Francesco A; Luzzago, Stefano; Tian, Zhe; Longo, Nicola; Graefen, Markus; Chun, Felix K H; Saad, Fred; Briganti, Alberto; De Cobelli, Ottavio; Mirone, Vincenzo; Karakiewicz, Pierre I.

In: UROL ONCOL-SEMIN ORI, Vol. 39, No. 1, 01.2021, p. 74.e1-74.e7.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Collà Ruvolo, C, Stolzenbach, LF, Nocera, L, Deuker, M, Mistretta, FA, Luzzago, S, Tian, Z, Longo, N, Graefen, M, Chun, FKH, Saad, F, Briganti, A, De Cobelli, O, Mirone, V & Karakiewicz, PI 2021, 'Comparison of Mexican-American vs Caucasian prostate cancer active surveillance candidates', UROL ONCOL-SEMIN ORI, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 74.e1-74.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.08.012

APA

Collà Ruvolo, C., Stolzenbach, L. F., Nocera, L., Deuker, M., Mistretta, F. A., Luzzago, S., Tian, Z., Longo, N., Graefen, M., Chun, F. K. H., Saad, F., Briganti, A., De Cobelli, O., Mirone, V., & Karakiewicz, P. I. (2021). Comparison of Mexican-American vs Caucasian prostate cancer active surveillance candidates. UROL ONCOL-SEMIN ORI, 39(1), 74.e1-74.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.08.012

Vancouver

Collà Ruvolo C, Stolzenbach LF, Nocera L, Deuker M, Mistretta FA, Luzzago S et al. Comparison of Mexican-American vs Caucasian prostate cancer active surveillance candidates. UROL ONCOL-SEMIN ORI. 2021 Jan;39(1):74.e1-74.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.08.012

Bibtex

@article{91e4eec46ef54a89a23028fb0e656811,
title = "Comparison of Mexican-American vs Caucasian prostate cancer active surveillance candidates",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: We compared upgrading and upstaging rates in low risk and favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer (CaP) patients according to racial and/or ethnic group: Mexican-Americans and Caucasians.METHODS: Within Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2010-2015), we identified low risk and favorable intermediate risk CaP patients according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Descriptives and logistic regression models were used. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis was performed to test the association between Mexican-American vs. Caucasian racial and/or ethnic groups and upgrading either to Gleason-Grade Group (GGG II) or to GGG III, IV or V, in low risk or favorable intermediate risk CaP patients, respectively.RESULTS: We identified 673 (2.6%) Mexican-American and 24,959 (97.4%) Caucasian CaP patients. Of those, 14,789 were low risk (434 [2.9%] Mexican-Americans vs. 14,355 [97.1%] Caucasians) and 10,834 were favorable intermediate risk (239 [2.2%] Mexican-Americans vs. 10,604 [97.8%] Caucasians). In low risk CaP patients, Mexican-American vs. Caucasian racial and/or ethnic group did not result in either upgrading or upstaging differences. However, in favorable intermediate risk CaP patients, upgrading rate was higher in Mexican-Americans than in Caucasians (31.4 vs. 25.5%, OR 1.33, P = 0.044), but no difference was recorded for upstaging. When comparisons focused on upgrading to GGG III, IV or V, higher rate was recorded in Mexican-American relative to Caucasian favorable intermediate risk CaP patients (20.4 vs. 15.4%, OR 1.41, P = 0.034).CONCLUSION: Low risk Mexican-American CaP patients do not differ from low risk Caucasian CaP patients. However, favorable intermediate risk Mexican-American CaP patients exhibit higher rates of upgrading than their Caucasian counterparts. This information should be considered at treatment decision making.",
author = "{Coll{\`a} Ruvolo}, Claudia and Stolzenbach, {Lara Franziska} and Luigi Nocera and Marina Deuker and Mistretta, {Francesco A} and Stefano Luzzago and Zhe Tian and Nicola Longo and Markus Graefen and Chun, {Felix K H} and Fred Saad and Alberto Briganti and {De Cobelli}, Ottavio and Vincenzo Mirone and Karakiewicz, {Pierre I}",
note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",
year = "2021",
month = jan,
doi = "10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.08.012",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "74.e1--74.e7",
journal = "UROL ONCOL-SEMIN ORI",
issn = "1078-1439",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Mexican-American vs Caucasian prostate cancer active surveillance candidates

AU - Collà Ruvolo, Claudia

AU - Stolzenbach, Lara Franziska

AU - Nocera, Luigi

AU - Deuker, Marina

AU - Mistretta, Francesco A

AU - Luzzago, Stefano

AU - Tian, Zhe

AU - Longo, Nicola

AU - Graefen, Markus

AU - Chun, Felix K H

AU - Saad, Fred

AU - Briganti, Alberto

AU - De Cobelli, Ottavio

AU - Mirone, Vincenzo

AU - Karakiewicz, Pierre I

N1 - Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2021/1

Y1 - 2021/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: We compared upgrading and upstaging rates in low risk and favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer (CaP) patients according to racial and/or ethnic group: Mexican-Americans and Caucasians.METHODS: Within Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2010-2015), we identified low risk and favorable intermediate risk CaP patients according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Descriptives and logistic regression models were used. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis was performed to test the association between Mexican-American vs. Caucasian racial and/or ethnic groups and upgrading either to Gleason-Grade Group (GGG II) or to GGG III, IV or V, in low risk or favorable intermediate risk CaP patients, respectively.RESULTS: We identified 673 (2.6%) Mexican-American and 24,959 (97.4%) Caucasian CaP patients. Of those, 14,789 were low risk (434 [2.9%] Mexican-Americans vs. 14,355 [97.1%] Caucasians) and 10,834 were favorable intermediate risk (239 [2.2%] Mexican-Americans vs. 10,604 [97.8%] Caucasians). In low risk CaP patients, Mexican-American vs. Caucasian racial and/or ethnic group did not result in either upgrading or upstaging differences. However, in favorable intermediate risk CaP patients, upgrading rate was higher in Mexican-Americans than in Caucasians (31.4 vs. 25.5%, OR 1.33, P = 0.044), but no difference was recorded for upstaging. When comparisons focused on upgrading to GGG III, IV or V, higher rate was recorded in Mexican-American relative to Caucasian favorable intermediate risk CaP patients (20.4 vs. 15.4%, OR 1.41, P = 0.034).CONCLUSION: Low risk Mexican-American CaP patients do not differ from low risk Caucasian CaP patients. However, favorable intermediate risk Mexican-American CaP patients exhibit higher rates of upgrading than their Caucasian counterparts. This information should be considered at treatment decision making.

AB - BACKGROUND: We compared upgrading and upstaging rates in low risk and favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer (CaP) patients according to racial and/or ethnic group: Mexican-Americans and Caucasians.METHODS: Within Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2010-2015), we identified low risk and favorable intermediate risk CaP patients according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Descriptives and logistic regression models were used. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis was performed to test the association between Mexican-American vs. Caucasian racial and/or ethnic groups and upgrading either to Gleason-Grade Group (GGG II) or to GGG III, IV or V, in low risk or favorable intermediate risk CaP patients, respectively.RESULTS: We identified 673 (2.6%) Mexican-American and 24,959 (97.4%) Caucasian CaP patients. Of those, 14,789 were low risk (434 [2.9%] Mexican-Americans vs. 14,355 [97.1%] Caucasians) and 10,834 were favorable intermediate risk (239 [2.2%] Mexican-Americans vs. 10,604 [97.8%] Caucasians). In low risk CaP patients, Mexican-American vs. Caucasian racial and/or ethnic group did not result in either upgrading or upstaging differences. However, in favorable intermediate risk CaP patients, upgrading rate was higher in Mexican-Americans than in Caucasians (31.4 vs. 25.5%, OR 1.33, P = 0.044), but no difference was recorded for upstaging. When comparisons focused on upgrading to GGG III, IV or V, higher rate was recorded in Mexican-American relative to Caucasian favorable intermediate risk CaP patients (20.4 vs. 15.4%, OR 1.41, P = 0.034).CONCLUSION: Low risk Mexican-American CaP patients do not differ from low risk Caucasian CaP patients. However, favorable intermediate risk Mexican-American CaP patients exhibit higher rates of upgrading than their Caucasian counterparts. This information should be considered at treatment decision making.

U2 - 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.08.012

DO - 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.08.012

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 32950397

VL - 39

SP - 74.e1-74.e7

JO - UROL ONCOL-SEMIN ORI

JF - UROL ONCOL-SEMIN ORI

SN - 1078-1439

IS - 1

ER -