4.4 Article

Smoking and prostate cancer in a multi-ethnic cohort

期刊

PROSTATE
卷 73, 期 14, 页码 1518-1528

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/pros.22699

关键词

African American; cancer disparities; prostate cancer; smoking

资金

  1. United States Department of Defense [W81XWH-10-1-0532]
  2. DAMD [W81XWH-07-1-0203]
  3. National Institutes of Health [1R01MD007105-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND. Prostate cancer (PCa) and smoking-related morbidity disproportionately burdens African American (AA) men. Smoking is associated with high-grade PCa and incidence, but few studies have focused on AA men. This study aims to determine the effect of tobacco-use on odds of PCa and of high-grade PCa in a population of predominantly AA men. METHODS. This is a cross-sectional study evaluating smoking and PCa status in men with incident PCa and screened healthy controls. Altogether, 1,085 men (527 cases and 558 controls), age40 years were enrolled through outpatient urology clinics in two US cities from 2001 to 2012. Validated questionnaires were used to gather clinical and socioeconomic data. RESULTS. The cases and controls were predominantly AA (79.9% and 71.3%, respectively, P=0.01). AA men smoked more frequently (53.4% vs. 47.9%, P<0.001) and quit less frequently than European American (EA) men (31.5% vs. 40.4%, P=0.01). AA heavy smokers had increased odds of PCa diagnosis (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.09, 6.10) and high-grade cancer (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.03, 3.48) relative to never smokers and light smokers. Among AAs, heavy smokers had lower odds of NCCN low PCa recurrence risk stratification. AA former smokers had a trend for increased odds of high-grade cancer compared to never smokers. The associations between smokings, cancer diagnosis and cancer grade did not reach statistical significance in EA men. CONCLUSION. We found ethnic differences in smoking behavior. Heavy smoking is associated with increased odds of PCa and of higher Gleason grade in AA men. Prostate 73: 1518-1528, 2013 (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据