Disparities in guideline-concordant treatment receipt for localized prostate cancer (PCa): A SEER-based analysis.

S Salman Ayub Jajja (NYMC-LANDMARK MEDICAL CENTER, RI, Woonsocket, Rhode Island, United States) U Umair Ayub (1Mayo Clinic, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Phoenix, United States) M Muhammad Umar Afzal (Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ) S Syed Arsalan Ahmed Naqvi (Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ) M Muhammad Ali Khan M Muhammad Umair Anjum (The Wright Center for GME, Scranton, Pennsylvania, United States) Z Zaryab Bin Riaz (Division of Internal Medicine, Creighton University School of Medicine – Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ) A Ammad Raina (Midwestern University, AZCOM, Glendale, AZ) E Ewan Kemar Cobran (Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Scottsdale, AZ) Y Yousef Zakharia (Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine Mayo Clinic Phoenix Arizona USA) P Parminder Singh (Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ) I Irbaz Bin Riaz (Irbaz Bin Riaz, MD, PhD; R. Bryan Rumble, MSc; Thomas A. Hope, MD; Giuseppe Procopio, MD; and Neha Vapiwala, MD; Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, Milan, Italy; and University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA)

Abstract

e17155 Background: Localized PCa is classified into six NCCN risk categories, each with specific treatment recommendations. However, treatment concordance across these categories and its variation by race in clinical practice remain unexplored. Therefore, we aim to describe patterns of guideline-concordant treatment receipt for localized PCa across risk groups and race. Methods: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2018–2020) was queried to identify patients with localized PCa from 17 registries. Data regarding clinical T stage, Gleason patterns, PSA level, biopsy cores and initial treatment received (radiation, radical prostatectomy, systemic therapy) was obtained. Each patient was then stratified into one of six NCCN-based risk categories using a rule-based algorithm. Using the stratified risk category of each patient, treatment recommendations were obtained from the NCCN guidelines. Concordance was assessed by comparing the received treatment and guideline-recommended treatment. A focused bi-variate logistic regression analysis was performed adjusting for risk groups, and race. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed to quantify the magnitude of guideline-discordant treatment receipt. Results: This analysis included 69,584 patients with localized PCa (White: 53,875 [77.4%]; Black: 11,265 [16.2%]; Asian/Pacific Islander: 4,133 [5.9%]; American Indian/Alaska Native: 311 0.5%]). In terms of risk groups, patients in higher risk categories had increased odds of discordance compared to the lower risk groups (Table). In terms of race, Black men had significantly higher odds of receiving guideline-discordant therapy (OR:1.67, 95% CI:1.58–1.76), while no statistically significant difference was observed with American Indian/Alaska Native men (OR:1.21, 95% CI: 0.92–1.61) and Asian/Pacific Islander men (OR:1.05, 95% CI:0.97–1.14) compared to White men. Conclusions: Population level data, based on limited sample size in some groups, suggests that treatment concordance with NCCN guidelines varies by risk group and race in localized PCa. Black patients, and those with higher risk groups were more likely to receive guideline-discordant therapy. These findings highlight the need for strategies and prospective studies at individual patient level to evaluate and enhance guideline adherence to promote personalized care for these patients. Variable Discordant Treatment (%) OR (95% CI) White 22168 (41.1) REF Black 5653 (47.5) 1.67 (1.58-1.76) * Asian/Pacific Islander 1822 (44.1) 1.05 (0.97-1.14) American Indian/Alaska Native 191 (61.4) 1.22 (0.92- 1.61) Very Low Risk 770 (9) REF Low Risk 146 (2) 0.16 (0.13-0.19) * Favorable Risk 35 (0.4) 0.03 (0.02-0.04) * Unfavorable Risk 15125 (83.2) 36.30 (33.72-39.25) * High/Very High Risk 13441 (50) 7.32 (6.83-7.86) * * p <0.05.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 16_suppl
Published June 01, 2025
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (12)

S

Salman Ayub Jajja

NYMC-LANDMARK MEDICAL CENTER, RI, Woonsocket, Rhode Island, United States

U

Umair Ayub

1Mayo Clinic, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Phoenix, United States

M

Muhammad Umar Afzal

Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ

S

Syed Arsalan Ahmed Naqvi

Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ

M

Muhammad Ali Khan

M

Muhammad Umair Anjum

The Wright Center for GME, Scranton, Pennsylvania, United States

Z

Zaryab Bin Riaz

Division of Internal Medicine, Creighton University School of Medicine – Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ

A

Ammad Raina

Midwestern University, AZCOM, Glendale, AZ

E

Ewan Kemar Cobran

Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Scottsdale, AZ

Y

Yousef Zakharia

Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine Mayo Clinic Phoenix Arizona USA

P

Parminder Singh

Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ

I

Irbaz Bin Riaz

Irbaz Bin Riaz, MD, PhD; R. Bryan Rumble, MSc; Thomas A. Hope, MD; Giuseppe Procopio, MD; and Neha Vapiwala, MD; Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, Milan, Italy; and University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA