Objectives To evaluate if the different results of prostate cancer risk between black and white Brazilian men may be associated with the varying methodology used to define participants as either Blacks or Whites. Patients and Methods We evaluated median PSA values, rate of PSA level ≥4.0 ng/mL, indications for prostate biopsy, prostate cancer detection rate, biopsy/cancer rate, cancer/biopsy rate, and the relative risk of cancer between blacks versus whites, blacks versus non-blacks (browns and whites), non-whites (browns and blacks) versus whites, African versus non-African descendants, and African descendants or blacks versus non-African descendants and non-blacks. Results From 1544 participants, there were 51.4% whites, 37.2% browns, 11.4% blacks, and 5.4% African descendants. Median PSA level was 0.9 ng/mL in whites, browns, and non-African descendants, compared to 1.2 ng/mL in blacks, and African descendants or blacks, and 1.3 ng/mL in African descendants. Indications for prostate biopsy were present in 16.9% for African descendants, 15.9% of black, 12.3% of white, 11.4% for non-African descendants, and 9.9% of brown participants. Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 30.3% of performed biopsies: 6.2% of African descendants, 5.1% of blacks, 3.3% of whites, 3.0% of non-African descendants, and 2.6% of browns. Conclusions Median PSA values were higher for Blacks versus Whites in all classification systems, except for non-white versus white men. The rate of prostate biopsy, prostate cancer detection rate, and relative risk for cancer was increased in African descendants, and African descendants or blacks, compared to non-African descendants, and non-African descendants and non-blacks, respectively.

PurposeTo report the prevalence and risk factors of penile lesions/anomalies in a Metropolitan Brazilian city.Materials and MethodsAll participants undergoing prostate cancer screening in the city of Curitiba were systematically examined to identify penile lesions including cutaneous mycosis, sexually transmitted diseases, penile cancer, meatal stenosis, hypospadias, and Peyronie's disease. Outcomes of interest included the prevalence and the relative risk and 95% confidence intervals of the lesions/anomalies according to age, school level, race, personal history of diabetes, arterial hypertension, nonspecific urethritis, and vasectomy.ResultsBalanoposthitis occurred in 11.8% of all participants, with an increased risk in those with diabetes (RR = 1.73), or past history of nonspecific urethritis (RR = 1.58); tinea of the penis was present in 0.2%; condyloma acuminata in 0.5%; herpes virus infection in 0.4%; urethral discharge in 0.2%; genital vitiligo in 0.7%, with an increased prevalence in non-white men (RR = 4.43), and in subjects with lower school level (RR = 7.24); phimosis in 0.5%, with a nearly 7-fold increased risk in diabetics; lichen sclerosus in 0.3%; stenosis of the external urethral meatus in 0.7%, with a higher prevalence in subjects with lichen sclerosus (RR = 214.9), and in those older than 60 years of age (RR = 3.57); hypospadia in 0.6%; fibrosis suggestive of Peyronie's disease in 0.9%, especially in men older than 60 years (RR = 4.59) and with diabetes (RR = 3.91); and penile cancer in 0.06%.ConclusionWe estimated the prevalence and risk factors of commonly seen penile diseases in an adult cohort of Brazilian men.

PurposeTo evaluate the significance of several risk factors for prostate cancer in a cohort of Brazilian men.Subjects and methods: Men ≥ 40 years-old participating in a prostate cancer screening program between December 2006 and April 2011 in the city of Curitiba, Brazil, were evaluated to determine the prevalence, relative risk (RR) and 95% CI of prostate cancer according to age, race, ethnicity, family history of prostate cancer, educational level, and history of vasectomy, increased blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, and urethritis.ResultsIn 2121 men included in this study, prostate cancer prevalence was 0.6% for men between 40-49 years versus 2.0% (adjusted RR = 2.58), 7.7% (adjusted RR = 5.76), and 8.4% (adjusted RR = 4.88) for men 50-59 years, 60-69 years, and ≥ 70 years, respectively (p < 0.05 to all). The prevalence of cancer was 5.1% in blacks versus 3.3% in whites (adjusted RR = 1.56, p > 0.05); 6.1% in African descendants, in comparison to 3.0% in non-African descendants (adjusted RR = 3.17, p < 0.05); 5.1% in men with a positive family history, compared to 2.5% in those with no family history (adjusted RR = 1.55, p > 0.05); and 4.8% in participants with incomplete elementary school level or lower, compared to 2.2% in men with complete elementary school level or higher education (adjusted RR = 1.85, p > 0.05). Men with/without history of vasectomy, increased blood pressure, diabetes, and urethritis had a prostate cancer prevalence of 0.8%/3.0% (adjusted RR = 0.23, p > 0.05), 3.8%/2.2% (adjusted RR = 1.16, p > 0.05), 3.7%/2.6% (adjusted RR = 1.39, p > 0.05), and 2.6%/2.6% (adjusted RR = 0.99, p > 0.05), respectively.ConclusionsRisk factors associated with an increased prevalence of prostate cancer in this cohort included increasing age and African ethnicity.

BACKGROUND: Black men have a higher incidence of prostate cancer compared with White men in several countries. In Brazil, most studies reported a similar prevalence of prostate cancer between Blacks and Whites as a result of the high race mixture of the population. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review with meta-analysis of the prevalence of prostate cancer in Black versus White, Brown versus White, and Black versus Brown Brazilian men. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This systematic review included cohort, cross sectional and case-control studies comparing the prevalence of prostate cancer between races in Brazil. It was performed using an electronic search of references in bibliographic databases, and dissertations and theses databases from several Brazilian hospitals, universities, and schools of medicine. Meta-analysis was conducted using the RevMan software from the Cochrane Collaboration. To control for potential confounding variables, sensitivity analyses excluding case-control and cross sectional studies were performed. MEASUREMENTS: The outcomes of interest included the number of participants, prevalence of prostate cancer, and odds ratio of cancer between Black and White men, Brown and White men, and Black and Brown men. Results and Limitations: Twelve studies approaching the prevalence of prostate cancer in Black or Brown vs. White men in Brazil were identified, totalizing 41388 participants. The prevalence of prostate cancer was 9.6% in Black vs. 5.6% in White men (OR 1.58), 10.1% in Black vs. 6.7% in Brown men (OR 1.43), and 6.7% in Brown vs. 6.6% in White men (OR 1.14). Limitations of this review reflect the complexity and ambiguity in the definition of who is Black and who is not in such an heterogeneous population like the Brazilian people. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review with meta-analysis demonstrates a higher prevalence of prostate cancer in Black men compared to White or Brown Brazilian men. The prevalence of prostate cancer is similar in Brown versus White men.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the preferred position used by Brazilian Urologists to perform DRE, the position that Brazilian patients prefer or think it is less embarrassing to have a DRE, and to evaluate the results of DRE with patients in left lateral decubitus, modified lithotomy, standing-up, or the physician will have them place their elbows on the table and squat down slightly. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Brazilian Urologists were contacted by e-mail, and 200 patients answered a questionnaire while undergoing prostate cancer screening. RESULTS: The preferred position was modified lithotomy position reported by 63.4% of Urologists, and left lateral position reported by 42.7% of the patients. Total DRE time was lower in the standing-up position. Pain and urinary urgency scores were similar regardless of the position used, and bowel urgency score was higher in patients squatting down. Patients were similar in terms of age and PSA level, but there was a significant difference between the standard deviations of estimated prostate weight in left lateral position. There were no differences in prostate asymmetry, positive DRE, or incomplete palpation of the prostate rates among different examination positions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite individual subjective preferences, a faster examination time in the standing-up position, and higher bowel urgency scores in patients with their elbows placed on the table and squatting down slightly, there were similar rates of prostate asymmetry, positive DRE, and incomplete palpation of the prostate, and comparable patient tolerability among different examination techniques.