Black men are disproportionately impacted by lung cancer morbidity and mortality. Low-dose helical computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening has demonstrated benefits for reducing lung cancer deaths by identifying cancers at earlier, more treatable stages. Despite the known benefits, LDCT screening is underutilized in black men. Studies in racially heterogeneous populations have found correlations between screening behaviors and factors such as physician trust, physician referral, and a desire to reduce the uncertainty of not knowing if they had lung cancer; yet little is known about the factors that specifically contribute to screening behaviors in black men. Community engagement strategies are beneficial for understanding barriers to health-care engagement. One community engagement approach is the citizen scientist model. Citizen scientists are lay people who are trained in research methods; they have proven valuable in increasing communities’ knowledge of the importance of healthy behaviors such as screening, awareness of research, building trust in research, and improving study design and ethics. This paper proposes an intervention, grounded in community-based participatory research approaches and social network theory, to engage black men as citizen scientists in an effort to increase lung cancer screening in black men. This mixed-methods intervention will examine the attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs of black men related to uptake of evidence-based lung cancer screening.
Objective
To compare Prostate Health Index (PHI) and prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) density as secondary tests after multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in improving the detection accuracy of Gleason grade group (GG) 2‐5 prostate cancer (PCa) and in decreasing unnecessary biopsies in a multiethnic biopsy‐naïve population.
Methods
From February 2017 to February 2020, we recruited consecutive biopsy‐naïve men in participating urology clinics for elevated PSA levels. They all had a PHI score, mpMRI, and prostate biopsy. Experienced genitourinary radiologists read all mpMRI studies based on PIRADS version 2.0. Logistic regression models were used to generate receiver operating characteristic curves. Models were tested for effect modification between Race (Black vs White) and both PHI and PSA density, and Race and PIRADS to determine if race impacted their prediction accuracy. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of PHI and PSA density thresholds were calculated by PIRADS scores. The primary outcome was GG2‐5 PCa, that is, Gleason score ≥3 + 4.
Results
The study included 143 men, of which 65 (45.5%) were self‐reported Black. Median age was 62.0 years and 55 men (38.4%) had GG2‐5 PCa. Overall, 18.1% had PIRADS 1‐2, 32.9% had PIRADS 3, and 49.0% had PIRADS 4‐5. For the binary logistic regressions, the interactions between PIRADS and Race (P = .08), Log (PHI) and Race (P = .17), and Log (PSA density) and Race (P = .42) were not statistically significant. Within PIRADS 3 lesions, a PHI ≥49 prevented unnecessary biopsies in 55% of men and missed no GG2‐5 PCa, yielding a negative predictive value of 100%. There was no reliable PHI or PSA density threshold to avoid PCa biopsies in PIRADS 1‐2 or 4‐5.
Conclusions
PHI and PSA density can be used after mpMRI to improve the detection of GG2‐5 PCa in a biopsy‐naïve cohort. PHI may be superior to PSA density in PIRADS 3 lesions by avoiding 55% of unnecessary biopsies. Using both PHI and PSA density in series may further increase specificity and lead to fewer unnecessary biopsies, but further larger studies are warranted to determine the optimal threshold of each biomarker.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.