Prostate cancer mortality rates compared to urologist population densities and prostate-specific antigen screening levels on a state-by-state basis in the United States of America

Regional differences in firearm ownership, storage and use: results from a representative survey of five US states

BACKGROUND

Firearm access and storage practices influence risk for injury and death; however, prior research has considered only national and regional differences on these variables, overlooking state-level differences.

OBJECTIVES

To analyse and describe statewide differences in firearm ownership, storage and use in a representative sample of five US states.

DESIGN

Variables were assessed via an online self-report survey administered between 29 April 2022 and 15 May 2022.

SETTING

Surveys were completed online.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants (n=3510) were members of knowledge panel, a probability-based sample recruited to be representative of US adults. All participants were aged 18+ and resided in one of five states: Colorado, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey or Texas.

MEASUREMENTS

We used χ2 tests to examine state differences in firearm ownership, childhood firearm experiences and purchasing. A series of analyses of covariance were then used to assess differences in firearm storage, firearms owned and carrying behaviours while adjusting for pertinent demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

We found significant differences in firearm ownership across states. There were significantly more first-time firearm purchasers during the firearm purchasing surge in New Jersey. Both Mississippi and Texas have elevated rates of unsecure storage practices and firearm carrying outside of the home.

LIMITATIONS

Results are cross-sectional and self-report. Findings may not generalise beyond the five states assessed in this survey.

CONCLUSIONS

Public health messaging around firearm safety should account for differences in key firearm behaviours related to ownership, storage and use to ensure effective communication and reduce the risk of gun injury and death across states.

Screening for prostate cancer: History, evidence, controversies and future perspectives toward individualized screening

Differences in the incidence and mortality rate of prostate cancer between the USA and Japan have been decreasing over time, and were only twofold in 2017. Therefore, countermeasures against prostate cancer could be very important not only in Western countries, but also in developed Asian countries. Screening for prostate cancer in the general population using transrectal ultrasonography, digital rectal examination and/or prostate acid phosphatase began in Japan in the early 1980s, and screening with prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination has been widespread in the USA since the late 1980s. Large- and mid-scale randomized controlled trials on screening for prostate cancer began around 1990 in the USA, Canada and Europe. However, most of these studies failed as randomized controlled trials because of high contamination in the control arm, low compliance in the screening arm or insufficient screening setting about screening frequency and/or biopsy indication. The best available level 1 evidence is data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer and the Göteborg screening study. However, several non-urological organizations and lay media around the world have mischaracterized the efficacy of prostate-specific antigen screening. To avoid long-term confusion about screening for prostate cancer, leading professional urological organizations, including the Japanese Urological Association, are moving toward the establishment of an optimal screening system that minimizes the drawbacks of overdetection, overtreatment and loss of quality of life due to treatment, and maximizes reductions in the risk of death as a result of prostate cancer and the development of metastatic prostate cancer.

Geographical Variations in Prostate Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Review of International Evidence

Background: Previous reviews of geographical disparities in the prostate cancer continuum from diagnosis to mortality have identified a consistent pattern of poorer outcomes with increasing residential disadvantage and for rural residents. However, there are no contemporary, systematic reviews summarizing the latest available evidence. Our objective was to systematically review the published international evidence for geographical variations in prostate cancer indicators by residential rurality and disadvantage.

Methods: Systematic searches of peer-reviewed articles in English published from 1/1/1998 to 30/06/2018 using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Informit databases. Inclusion criteria were: population was adult prostate cancer patients; outcome measure was PSA testing, prostate cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, access to and use of services, survival, and prostate cancer mortality with quantitative results by residential rurality and/or disadvantage. Studies were critically appraised using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Results: Overall 169 studies met the inclusion criteria. Around 50% were assessed as high quality and 50% moderate. Men from disadvantaged areas had consistently lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and prostate cancer incidence, poorer survival, more advanced disease and a trend toward higher mortality. Although less consistent, predominant patterns by rurality were lower PSA testing, prostate cancer incidence and survival, but higher stage disease and mortality among rural men. Both geographical measures were associated with variations in access and use of prostate cancer-related services for low to high risk disease.

Conclusions: This review found substantial evidence that prostate cancer indicators varied by residential location across diverse populations and geographies. While wide variations in study design limited comparisons across studies, our review indicated that internationally, men living in disadvantaged areas, and to a lesser extent more rural areas, face a greater prostate cancer burden. This review highlights the need for a better understanding of the complex social, environmental, and behavioral reasons for these variations, recognizing that, while important, geographical access is not the only issue. Implementing research strategies to help identify these processes and to better understand the central role of disadvantage to variations in health outcome are crucial to inform the development of evidence-based targeted interventions.

Socioeconomic status, healthcare density, and risk of prostate cancer among African American and Caucasian men in a large prospective study

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to separately examine the impact of neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation and availability of healthcare resources on prostate cancer risk among African American and Caucasian men.

METHODS

In the large, prospective NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study, we analyzed baseline (1995-1996) data from adult men, aged 50-71 years. Incident prostate cancer cases (n = 22,523; 1,089 among African Americans) were identified through December 2006. Lifestyle and health risk information was ascertained by questionnaires administered at baseline. Area-level socioeconomic indicators were ascertained by linkage to the US Census and the Area Resource File. Multilevel Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A differential effect among African Americans and Caucasians was observed for neighborhood deprivation (p-interaction = 0.04), percent uninsured (p-interaction = 0.02), and urologist density (p-interaction = 0.01). Compared to men living in counties with the highest density of urologists, those with fewer had a substantially increased risk of developing advanced prostate cancer (HR = 2.68, 95 % CI = 1.31, 5.47) among African American.

CONCLUSIONS

Certain socioeconomic indicators were associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer among African American men compared to Caucasians. Minimizing differences in healthcare availability may be a potentially important pathway to minimizing disparities in prostate cancer risk.

Does urological cancer mortality increase with low population density of physicians?

PURPOSE

We examined the association between urological cancer mortality rates and the presence of physicians. We hypothesized that cancer mortality rates increase with a low physician population density since this would decrease the detection of cancers at an early stage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Mortality rates for prostate cancer, bladder cancer, kidney and renal pelvis cancer, and cancer at all sites for white patients in United States counties from 2003 to 2007 were obtained from the National Vital Statistics System. High and low rate groups of counties were reviewed for each type of cancer. The high rate groups consisted of 15 or 25 counties with the highest cancer mortality rates. The low rate groups consisted of counties, selected from the same states as high rate groups, with the lowest mortality rates. Levels of physicians per 10,000 general population, income, poverty and no health insurance were compared between the high and low cancer rate groups.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant inverse association between physician population density levels and kidney and renal pelvis cancer mortality rates. The association was suggestive for bladder cancer and prostate cancer mortality but not for cancer at all sites. There was also a tendency for an inverse association between family income and cancer mortality rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Kidney and renal pelvis cancer mortality rates increased significantly with a low physician population density. We found a suggestive but not significant negative association between physician population density and mortality rates for prostate cancer and bladder cancer but not for cancer at all sites. Low family income was associated with higher cancer rates.

Updated Japanese Urological Association Guidelines on prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer in 2010

The exposure rate of screening for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in Japan is still very low compared with that in the USA or western Europe. The mortality rate of prostate cancer will increase in the future and in 2020 it will be 2.8-fold higher than in 2000. Therefore, there is an urgent need to determine the best available countermeasures to decrease the rate of prostate cancer death. PSA screening, which can reduce the risk of death as a result of prostate cancer, should be offered to all men at risk of developing prostate cancer with fact sheets showing updated benefits and drawbacks of screening for prostate cancer.

Urologist density and county-level urologic cancer mortality

PURPOSE

The surgical work force distribution at the county level varies widely across the United States, and the impact of differential access on cancer outcomes is unclear. We used urologists as a test case because they are the first care providers for urologic cancers, can easily be identified from available data sources, and are unevenly distributed throughout the country. The goal of this study was to determine the effect of increasing urologist density on local prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer mortality.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using county-level data from the Area Resource File, US Census, National Cancer Institute, and Centers for Disease Control, regression models were built for prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer mortality, controlling for categorized urologist density, county demographics, socioeconomic factors, and preexisting health care infrastructure.

RESULTS

For each of the three cancers, there was a statistically significant cancer-specific mortality reduction associated with counties that had more than zero urologists (16% to 22% reduction for prostate cancer, 17% to 20% reduction for bladder cancer, and 8% to 14% reduction for kidney cancer with increasing urologist density) relative to zero urologists. However, increasing density greater than two urologists per 100,000 people had no statistically significant impact on mortality for any of the tumors studied.

CONCLUSION

The presence of a urologist is associated with lower mortality for urologic cancers in that county, but increasing urologist density does not yield further improvements. Therefore, a nuanced and geographically aware policy toward the size and distribution of the future work force is most likely to provide the greatest population-level improvement in cancer mortality outcomes.

Geographic distribution of urologists throughout the United States using a county level approach

PURPOSE

The adequacy of the urologist work force in absolute numbers and relative distribution is unclear. To develop effective policies addressing the needs of an aging population we must better understand the urologist work force. We assessed the geographic distribution of urologists throughout the United States at the county level and determined the county characteristics associated with increased urologist density.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

County level data from the Department of Health and Human Services Area Resource File and the United States Census were analyzed in this ecological study. Logistic regression and ordinal logistic regression models were built to identify predictors of urologist density, defined as the number of urologists per 100,000 individuals. National patterns of urologist density were mapped graphically at the county level.

RESULTS

Overall 63% of the counties in the United States lack a urologist. Based on multivariate models urologists were less likely to be found in nonmetropolitan counties (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.46-0.72) and rural counties (OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.02-0.06) than in metropolitan counties, which confirmed visually mapped models. Patterns of urologist density also appeared to be influenced by climate and county education levels rather than by traditional socioeconomic measures. Urologists younger than 45 years old were 3 times less likely to be located in nonmetropolitan and rural counties than their older counterparts.

CONCLUSIONS

The uneven distribution of urologists throughout the United States is likely to worsen as younger physicians continue to cluster in urban areas. Governing bodies must consider this distribution in their calls for increasing the number of training positions.