4.1 Article

ETHNICITY AS A PREDICTIVE FACTOR FOR HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA SCREENING AMONG PATIENTS IN HAWAII

Journal

ETHNICITY & DISEASE
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages 376-381

Publisher

INT SOC HYPERTENSION BLACKS-ISHIB

Keywords

Early Detection of Cancer; Health Care Disparities; Hepatocellular Carcinoma; Liver Neoplasms; Mass Screening

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Although hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance is associated with mortality reduction, it continues to be underutilized. The failure to conduct screening tests is a significant factor in the late diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma when curative interventions may not be feasible. Reasons for these low surveillance rates are unclear and need to be elucidated. Design, Setting, Patients: This retrospective study reviewed 616 cases of HCC from a hepatobiliary surgery office in Hawaii for age, sex, ethnicity, birthplace, residence, education, employment, insurance, and obesity to determine their influence on HCC screening. Main Outcome Measures: HCC screening. Results: Of the 616 cases, only 132 patients (21.4%) had undergone screening. Although the majority of patients were male, those who were screened were more likely to be female (P=.0082). However, multivariate analysis found ethnicity to be the sole determinant of screening (P<.0005). Koreans were more likely than Whites to have had screening, whereas Japanese, Pacific Islanders, and Filipinos were less likely. Age >60 years, sex, American birthplace, urban residence, high school completion, employment status, insurance, and BMI>35 kg/m(2) were not predictors of screening. Conclusions: Of the sociodemographic factors, ethnicity was important in predicting screening. Further research is needed to understand the reasons for these ethnic differences and to develop targeted interventions to improve hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance utilization rates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available