4.4 Article

Clinical characteristics of prostate cancer in African Americans, American whites, and Senegalese men

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 61, 期 5, 页码 987-992

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(02)02588-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01-CA85074] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIEHS NIH HHS [R29-ES08031] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. To describe the clinical features of prostate cancer in Senegalese men and compare these features with those found in African-American and white American men. Methods. We identified an unselected series of 121 patients with prostate cancer diagnosed at two hospitals in Dakar, Senegal between 1997 and 2002. Medical record abstractions were undertaken to evaluate the prostate tumor characteristics, patient age at diagnosis, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, and reason for referral. In addition, these characteristics were compared with a sample of 455 U.S. white men and 60 African-American men with prostate cancer who were studied as part of a prostate cancer case-control study. Results. Senegalese men had a significantly worse tumor stage than Americans (41.3% versus 18.8%, P <0.001), a significantly worse mean PSA level at diagnosis (mean PSA 72.7 ng/mL versus 9.0 ng/mL in Americans; P <0.001), and were diagnosed at a significantly later age than U.S. men (69 years versus 61 years, P <0.001). U.S. men were most likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer after an elevated PSA test, and Senegalese men were most often diagnosed after presenting for prostate-related symptoms. Conclusions. These observations are not unexpected given the differences in the patterns of prostate cancer screening and health care in the United States compared with Senegal. However, our data provide descriptive information about the characteristics of prostate cancer diagnosed in Senegal and highlight differences in the characteristics and detection of these tumors across populations with very different healthcare systems. (C) 2003, Elsevier 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