Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2023

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Prostate Cancer | Research

Defining aggressive prostate cancer: a geospatial perspective

Authors: Daniel Wiese, Tesla D. DuBois, Kristen A. Sorice, Carolyn Y. Fang, Camille Ragin, Mary B. Daly, Adam C. Reese, Kevin A. Henry, Shannon M. Lynch

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Spatial analysis can identify communities where men are at risk for aggressive prostate cancer (PCan) and need intervention. However, there are several definitions for aggressive PCan. In this study, we evaluate geospatial patterns of 3 different aggressive PCan definitions in relation to PCan-specific mortality and provide methodologic and practical insights into how each definition may affect intervention targets.

Methods

Using the Pennsylvania State Cancer Registry data (2005–2015), we used 3 definitions to assign “aggressive” status to patients diagnosed with PCan. Definition one (D1, recently recommended as the primary definition, given high correlation with PCan death) was based on staging criteria T4/N1/M1 or Gleason score  8. Definition two (D2, most frequently-used definition in geospatial studies) included distant SEER summary stage. Definition three (D3) included Gleason score  7 only. Using Bayesian spatial models, we identified geographic clusters of elevated odds ratios for aggressive PCan (binomial model) for each definition and compared overlap between those clusters to clusters of elevated hazard ratios for PCan-specific mortality (Cox regression).

Results

The number of “aggressive” PCan cases varied by definition, and influenced quantity, location, and extent/size of geographic clusters in binomial models. While spatial patterns overlapped across all three definitions, using D2 in binomial models provided results most akin to PCan-specific mortality clusters as identified through Cox regression. This approach resulted in fewer clusters for targeted intervention and less sensitive to missing data compared to definitions that rely on clinical TNM staging.

Conclusions

Using D2, based on distant SEER summary stage, in future research may facilitate consistency and allow for standardized comparison across geospatial studies.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. Cancer J Clin. 2022;72(1):7–33.CrossRef Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. Cancer J Clin. 2022;72(1):7–33.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Miller D, Bishop K, Kosary CL, Yu M, Ruhl J, Tatlovich Z, Mariotto A et al. Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2014 - SEER Statistics. SEER 2017. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Miller D, Bishop K, Kosary CL, Yu M, Ruhl J, Tatlovich Z, Mariotto A et al. Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2014 - SEER Statistics. SEER 2017.
3.
go back to reference Werth N. The Burden of Cancer in Pennsylvania. 2019:39. Werth N. The Burden of Cancer in Pennsylvania. 2019:39.
4.
go back to reference Li J, Siegel DA, King JB. Stage-specific incidence rates and trends of prostate cancer by age, race, and ethnicity, United States, 2004–2014. Ann Epidemiol. 2018;28(5):328–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Li J, Siegel DA, King JB. Stage-specific incidence rates and trends of prostate cancer by age, race, and ethnicity, United States, 2004–2014. Ann Epidemiol. 2018;28(5):328–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Welch HG, Albertsen PC. Prostate Cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate-specific Antigen Screening: 1986–2005. JNCI: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(19):1325–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Welch HG, Albertsen PC. Prostate Cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate-specific Antigen Screening: 1986–2005. JNCI: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(19):1325–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Hurwitz LM, Agalliu I, Albanes D, Barry KH, Berndt SI, Cai Q, Chen C, Cheng I, Genkinger JM, Giles GG, et al. Recommended definitions of aggressive prostate Cancer for etiologic epidemiologic research. JNCI: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(6):727–34.CrossRefPubMed Hurwitz LM, Agalliu I, Albanes D, Barry KH, Berndt SI, Cai Q, Chen C, Cheng I, Genkinger JM, Giles GG, et al. Recommended definitions of aggressive prostate Cancer for etiologic epidemiologic research. JNCI: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(6):727–34.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Benafif S, Kote-Jarai Z, Eeles RA. A review of prostate Cancer genome-wide Association Studies (GWAS). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2018;27(8):845–57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Benafif S, Kote-Jarai Z, Eeles RA. A review of prostate Cancer genome-wide Association Studies (GWAS). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2018;27(8):845–57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Collaborative Stage Work Group of the American Joint Committee on C. Collaborative Stage Data Collection System user documentation and coding instructions, version 02.03.02. In. Chicago, IL: American Joint Committee on Cancer; 2011. Collaborative Stage Work Group of the American Joint Committee on C. Collaborative Stage Data Collection System user documentation and coding instructions, version 02.03.02. In. Chicago, IL: American Joint Committee on Cancer; 2011.
9.
go back to reference Edge SB, Compton CC. The american Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(6):1471–4.CrossRefPubMed Edge SB, Compton CC. The american Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(6):1471–4.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Lawrance S, Bui C, Mahindra V, Arcorace M, Cooke-Yarborough C. Assessing a modified-AJCC TNM staging system in the New South Wales Cancer Registry, Australia. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):850–0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lawrance S, Bui C, Mahindra V, Arcorace M, Cooke-Yarborough C. Assessing a modified-AJCC TNM staging system in the New South Wales Cancer Registry, Australia. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):850–0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Schymura MJ, Sun L, Percy-Laurry A. Prostate cancer collaborative stage data items–their definitions, quality, usage, and clinical implications: a review of SEER data for 2004–2010. Cancer. 2014;120(Suppl 23):3758–70.CrossRefPubMed Schymura MJ, Sun L, Percy-Laurry A. Prostate cancer collaborative stage data items–their definitions, quality, usage, and clinical implications: a review of SEER data for 2004–2010. Cancer. 2014;120(Suppl 23):3758–70.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Walters S, Maringe C, Butler J, Brierley JD, Rachet B, Coleman MP. Comparability of stage data in cancer registries in six countries: Lessons from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership. Int J Cancer. 2013;132(3):676–85.CrossRefPubMed Walters S, Maringe C, Butler J, Brierley JD, Rachet B, Coleman MP. Comparability of stage data in cancer registries in six countries: Lessons from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership. Int J Cancer. 2013;132(3):676–85.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Zeigler-Johnson C, Madsen R, Keith SW, Glanz K, Quinn AM, Giri VN, Bowen E, Sauls D, Leader A. Testing a prostate Cancer Educational intervention in high-burden neighborhoods. J Racial Ethnic Health Disparities 2021. Zeigler-Johnson C, Madsen R, Keith SW, Glanz K, Quinn AM, Giri VN, Bowen E, Sauls D, Leader A. Testing a prostate Cancer Educational intervention in high-burden neighborhoods. J Racial Ethnic Health Disparities 2021.
14.
go back to reference Klassen A, Kulldorff M, Curriero F. Geographical clustering of prostate cancer grade and stage at diagnosis, before and after adjustment for risk factors. Int J Health Geogr. 2005;4(1):1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Klassen A, Kulldorff M, Curriero F. Geographical clustering of prostate cancer grade and stage at diagnosis, before and after adjustment for risk factors. Int J Health Geogr. 2005;4(1):1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference ArcGIS Desktop. In., 10.7 edn. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI); 2018. ArcGIS Desktop. In., 10.7 edn. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI); 2018.
16.
go back to reference Kneib T, Fahrmeir L. A mixed Model Approach for Geoadditive Hazard Regression. Scand J Stat. 2007;34(1):207–28.CrossRef Kneib T, Fahrmeir L. A mixed Model Approach for Geoadditive Hazard Regression. Scand J Stat. 2007;34(1):207–28.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Brezger A, Kneib T, Lang S. Bayes X-Software for bayesian inference based on Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulation techniques. In, 1.4 edn; 2005. Brezger A, Kneib T, Lang S. Bayes X-Software for bayesian inference based on Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulation techniques. In, 1.4 edn; 2005.
18.
go back to reference Brezger A, Lang S. Generalized structured additive regression based on bayesian P-splines. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2006;50(4):967–91.CrossRef Brezger A, Lang S. Generalized structured additive regression based on bayesian P-splines. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2006;50(4):967–91.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Umlauf N, Kneib T, Heinzl F, Lang S, Zeileis A. R2BayesX: Estimate structured additive regression models with BayesX. R package version 01–2 2013. Umlauf N, Kneib T, Heinzl F, Lang S, Zeileis A. R2BayesX: Estimate structured additive regression models with BayesX. R package version 01–2 2013.
20.
go back to reference Belitz C, Brezger A, Klein N, Kneib T, Lang S, Umlauf N. BayesX: Software for Bayesian Inference in Structured Additive Regression Models. In., 1.0 edn; 2012. Belitz C, Brezger A, Klein N, Kneib T, Lang S, Umlauf N. BayesX: Software for Bayesian Inference in Structured Additive Regression Models. In., 1.0 edn; 2012.
21.
go back to reference Team QD. QGIS Geographic Information System. In., 3.10 edn: QGIS Association; 2019. Team QD. QGIS Geographic Information System. In., 3.10 edn: QGIS Association; 2019.
22.
go back to reference Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL, the IGC. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology 2005, 29(9). Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL, the IGC. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology 2005, 29(9).
24.
go back to reference American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts & Fig. 2022. American Cancer Society. Atlanta, GA; 2022. American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts & Fig. 2022. American Cancer Society. Atlanta, GA; 2022.
Metadata
Title
Defining aggressive prostate cancer: a geospatial perspective
Authors
Daniel Wiese
Tesla D. DuBois
Kristen A. Sorice
Carolyn Y. Fang
Camille Ragin
Mary B. Daly
Adam C. Reese
Kevin A. Henry
Shannon M. Lynch
Publication date
01-12-2023
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-11281-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

BMC Cancer 1/2023 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine