Will Jackson

Importance: Black men are more likely to die of prostate cancer than white men. In men with similar stages of disease, the contribution of biological vs nonbiological differences to this observed disparity is unclear. Objective: To quantify the association of black race with long-term survival outcomes after controlling for known prognostic variables and access to care among men with prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multiple-cohort study included updated individual patient-level data of men with clinical T1-4N0-1M0 prostate cancer from the following 3 cohorts: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER [n = 296 273]); 5 equal-access regional medical centers within the Veterans Affairs health system (VA [n = 3972]); and 4 pooled National Cancer Institute-sponsored Radiation Therapy Oncology Group phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs [n = 5854]). Data were collected in the 3 cohorts from January 1, 1992, through December 31, 2013, and analyzed from April 27, 2017, through April 13, 2019. Exposures: In the VA and RCT cohorts, all patients received surgery and radiotherapy, respectively, with curative intent. In SEER, radical treatment, hormone therapy, or conservative management were received. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Secondary measures included other-cause mortality (OCM). To adjust for demographic-, cancer-, and treatment-related baseline differences, inverse probability weighting (IPW) was performed. Results: Among the 306 100 participants included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 64.9 [8.9] years), black men constituted 52 840 patients (17.8%) in the SEER cohort, 1513 (38.1%) in the VA cohort, and 1129 (19.3%) in the RCT cohort. Black race was associated with an increased age-adjusted PCSM hazard (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.23-1.37; P < .001) within the SEER cohort. After IPW adjustment, black race was associated with a 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.9%) increase in PCSM at 10 years after diagnosis (sHR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15; P < .001), with no significant difference for high-risk men (sHR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.12; P = .29). No significant differences in PCSM were found in the VA IPW cohort (sHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.56-1.30; P = .46), and black men had a significantly lower hazard in the RCT IPW cohort (sHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99; P = .04). Black men had a significantly increased hazard of OCM in the SEER (sHR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.27-1.34; P < .001) and RCT (sHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.06-1.29; P = .002) IPW cohorts. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, after adjustment for nonbiological differences, notably access to care and standardized treatment, black race did not appear to be associated with inferior stage-for-stage PCSM. A large disparity remained in OCM for black men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.

The critical role of primary care clinicians (PCCs) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) prevention, diagnosis and management must evolve as new treatment paradigms and disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) emerge. Our understanding of AD has grown substantially: no longer conceptualized as a late-in-life syndrome of cognitive and functional impairments, we now recognize that AD pathology builds silently for decades before cognitive impairment is detectable. Clinically, AD first manifests subtly as mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD before progressing to dementia. Emerging optimism for improved outcomes in AD stems from a focus on preventive interventions in midlife and timely, biomarker-confirmed diagnosis at early signs of cognitive deficits (i.e. MCI due to AD and mild AD dementia). A timely AD diagnosis is particularly important for optimizing patient care and enabling the appropriate use of anticipated DMTs. An accelerating challenge for PCCs and AD specialists will be to respond to innovations in diagnostics and therapy for AD in a system that is not currently well positioned to do so. To overcome these challenges, PCCs and AD specialists must collaborate closely to navigate and optimize dynamically evolving AD care in the face of new opportunities. In the spirit of this collaboration, we summarize here some prominent and influential models that inform our current understanding of AD. We also advocate for timely and accurate (i.e. biomarker-defined) diagnosis of early AD. In doing so, we consider evolving issues related to prevention, detecting emerging cognitive impairment and the role of biomarkers in the clinic.

PURPOSE: During a global pandemic, the benefit of routine visits and treatment of patients with cancer must be weighed against the risks to patients, staff, and society. Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers radiation oncology departments treat, and efficient resource utilization is essential in the setting of a pandemic. Herein, we aim to establish recommendations and a framework by which to evaluate prostate radiation therapy management decisions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation oncologists from the United States and the United Kingdom rapidly conducted a systematic review and agreed upon recommendations to safely manage patients with prostate cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. A RADS framework was created: remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy was applied to determine appropriate approaches. RESULTS: Recommendations were provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group regarding clinical node-positive, postprostatectomy, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease. Across all prostate cancer stages, telemedicine consultations and return visits were recommended when resources/staff available. Delays in consultations and return visits of between 1 and 6 months were deemed safe based on stage of disease. Treatment can be avoided or delayed until safe for very low, low, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. Unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, clinical node-positive, recurrence postsurgery, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease can receive neoadjuvant hormone therapy for 4 to 6 months as necessary. Ultrahypofractionation is preferred for localized, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1, and moderate hypofractionation is preferred for postprostatectomy and clinical node positive disease. Salvage is preferred to adjuvant radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Resources can be reduced for all identified stages of prostate cancer. The RADS (remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy) framework can be applied to other disease sites to help with decision making in a global pandemic.