Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Commentary on: Down L, Barlow M, Bailey SER, et al. Association between patient ethnicity and prostate cancer diagnosis following a prostate-specific antigen test: a cohort study of 730,000 men in primary care in the UK. BMC Med 2024 Mar 1;22(1):82.
Implications for practice and research
Clinicians should consider ethnic differences when interpreting prostate-specific antigen test results, particularly for black men, to ensure timely prostate cancer diagnosis and avoid overtreatment or undertreatment.
Further studies are needed to explore genetic, environmental and healthcare access factors that contribute to ethnic differences in prostate cancer incidence and progression.
Context
Prostate cancer is a common cancer worldwide, with incidence and mortality varying significantly across ethnic groups.1 2 Black men are at a higher risk of prostate cancer diagnosis and death, while Asian men are at a lower risk compared with white men.3 4 Despite these disparities, there is no formal prostate cancer screening programme in the UK, though prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests are available on request. Understanding these risks is critical for guiding clinical decision-making and ensuring equitable healthcare outcomes in the UK.
Methods
This retrospective cohort study analysed data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum dataset, including 730 515 men aged 40 years and over who had a PSA test between 2010 and 2017. The study focused on prostate cancer incidence following a raised PSA test result and the incidence of advanced prostate cancer, both stratified by ethnicity. Data were adjusted for confounders such as age, deprivation, body mass index, smoking, alcohol use and multimorbidity using multilevel logistic regression models. The primary analysis used age-specific PSA test thresholds, and the results were compared across ethnic groups, including black, white, Asian, mixed and other categories.
Findings
The study found that black men had the highest prostate cancer incidence (24.7%) within 1 year of a raised PSA result, while Asian men had the lowest (13.4%). White men had an incidence of 19.8%. The risk of advanced prostate cancer was similar for black and white men but lower for Asian men. These findings highlight a significant ethnic disparity in prostate cancer diagnosis in the UK, with black men at higher risk even after adjusting for demographic factors.
Commentary
Down et al shed light on important ethnic differences in prostate cancer risk following PSA tests.5 The finding that black men have a significantly higher incidence compared with other ethnic groups aligns with US research.4 However, this study adds valuable insight into the UK population, where healthcare access is more equitable through the National Health Service. Despite this, ethnic disparities persist, suggesting that factors beyond healthcare access, such as genetic predispositions, cultural differences in healthcare-seeking behaviour and PSA-level variations, may contribute.
One strength of this study is its large sample size (n=730 515), which makes the findings robust and representative of the UK population. However, the study has limitations, including the inability to fully capture the reasons for PSA testing, which introduces bias. For instance, black men at higher risk may be more likely to request or be offered PSA tests. The study also did not account for a family history of prostate cancer, a known risk factor.
Interestingly, black men did not have higher rates of advanced prostate cancer despite their higher incidence. This challenges the assumption that black men are more likely to present with more aggressive cancer and may suggest that increased awareness and earlier testing among black men in the UK could contribute to earlier diagnosis.6
In conclusion, this study underscores the importance of considering ethnicity when interpreting PSA results and highlights the need for further research to explore the underlying causes of disparities. Future studies should investigate the role of genetic and environmental factors and consider the development of tailored screening guidelines for high-risk ethnic groups.
Footnotes
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.