Abstract
Objective
To evaluate whether racial disparities in MRI-Bx usage persisted after correction
for socioeconomic, demographic, and clinical factors.
Methods
This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who received either MRI-Bx or systematic
biopsy (SB) within a single academic medical center between January 2018 - June 2020.
For each patient, socioeconomic variables including household income, education, percent
below poverty, and unemployment were estimated using 2015 American Community Survey
census-tract level data. Chi-square analysis was used to examine differences in clinical
and demographic characteristics between the two groups. The Benjamini-Hochberg procedure
was used to control false discovery rate (FDR) for multiple testing.
Results
Eighteen percent of Black men (53/295) received MRI-Bx while 41% (228/561) of white
men received MRI-Bx. Patients coming from highly impoverished areas were less likely
to receive MRI-Bx, 25% vs 75%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, race remained
significantly different across MRI-Bx and SB groups. Clinical factors including family
history, DRE, BMI, and prostate volume were not significantly different between patients
receiving MRI-Bx and SB.
Conclusion
Black men are less likely to receive MRI-Bx than white men, even after adjusting for
clinical and socioeconomic characteristics. Further work is necessary to identify
and study methods to increase equity in PCa diagnostic testing.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to UrologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Cancer statistics, 2021.CA: A Cancer J Clinicians. 2021; 71: 7-33
- Racial and ethnic differences in advanced-stage prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001; 93: 388-395
- Cancer statistics for African Americans, 2016: progress and opportunities in reducing racial disparities.CA Cancer J Clin. 2016; 66: 290-308
- Trends in the incidence of fatal prostate cancer in the United States by race.Eur Urol. 2017; 71: 195-201
- Racial treatment trends in localized/regional prostate carcinoma: 1992-1999.Cancer. 2005; 103: 538-545
- Racial/ethnic disparity in treatment for prostate cancer: does cancer severity matter?.Urology. 2017; 99: 76-83
- Racial differences in initial treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer.J Gen Intern Med. 2003; 18: 845-853
- Association of black race with prostate cancer-specific and other-cause mortality.JAMA Oncol. 2019; 5: 975-983
- Socioeconomic status, health care density, and risk of prostate cancer among African-American and Caucasian men in a large prospective study.Cancer Causes Control. 2012; 23: 1185-1191
- Racial disparity and socioeconomic status in association with survival in older men with local/regional stage prostate carcinoma: findings from a large community-based cohort.Cancer. 2006; 106: 1276-1285
- Racial disparities in survival for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer adjusted for treatment effects.Mayo Clin Proc. 2014; 89: 300-307
- Racial disparities in prostate specific antigen screening and referral to urology in a large, integrated health care system: a retrospective cohort study.J Urol. 2021; (101097JU0000000000001763)
- Socioeconomic status and prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates among the diverse population of California.Cancer Causes Control. 2009; 20: 1431-1440
- Survival of African American and non-Hispanic white men with prostate cancer in an equal-access health care system.Cancer. 2020; 126: 1683-1690
- Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Eur Urol. 2015; 68: 438-450
- Diagnostic pathway with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs standard pathway: results from a randomized prospective study in biopsy-naïve patients with suspected prostate cancer.Eur Urol. 2017; 72: 282-288
- Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.JAMA. 2015; 313: 390-397
- Racial disparity in the utilization of multiparametric MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer.Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;
- Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing.J Royal Statist Soc. Series B (Methodological). 1995; 57: 289-300
- Geographic distribution of racial differences in prostate cancer mortality.JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3 (Available at:) (accessed March 22, 2021)
- Minireview: the molecular and genomic basis for prostate cancer health disparities.Mol Endocrinol. 2013; 27: 879-891
- Disparities in staging prostate magnetic resonance imaging utilization for nonmetastatic prostate cancer patients undergoing definitive radiation therapy.Adv Radiat Oncol. 2016; 1: 325-332
- Race, treatment, and long-term survival from prostate cancer in an equal-access medical care delivery system.JAMA. 1995; 274: 1599-1605
- Marital status and survival in patients with cancer.J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31: 3869-3876
- Marital status independently predicts prostate cancer survival in men who underwent radical prostatectomy: an analysis of 95,846 individuals.Oncol Lett. 2018; 15: 4737-4744
- Marital status and prostate cancer outcomes.Can J Urol. 2013; 20: 6702-6706
- Racial differences in time from prostate cancer diagnosis to treatment initiation.Cancer. 2013; 119: 2486-2493
- Sociodemographic factors and delays in the diagnosis of six cancers: analysis of data from the ‘National Survey of NHS Patients: cancer’.Br J Cancer. 2005; 92: 1971-1975
- Cancer statistics, 2019.CA Cancer J Clin. 2019; 69: 7-34
Article info
Publication history
Published online: January 04, 2022
Accepted:
November 23,
2021
Received:
May 21,
2021
Footnotes
Financial Disclosure: The authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests.
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
