4.6 Article

Gender Disparities in Hematuria Evaluation and Bladder Cancer Diagnosis: A Population Based Analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 192, 期 4, 页码 1072-1077

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.04.101

关键词

urinary bladder neoplasms; hematuria; female; quality of health care; SEER program

资金

  1. American Cancer Society [PF-12-110-01-CPHPS]
  2. National Cancer Institute [T32-CA82088]
  3. National Cancer Institute Career Development Award [K07-CA118189]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Men are diagnosed with bladder cancer at 3 times the rate of women. However, women present with advanced disease and have poorer survival, suggesting delays in bladder cancer diagnosis. Hematuria is the presenting symptom in most cases. We assessed gender differences in hematuria evaluation in older adults with bladder cancer. Materials and Methods: Using the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results) cancer registry linked with Medicare claims we identified Medicare beneficiaries 66 years old or older diagnosed with bladder cancer between 2000 and 2007 with a claim for hematuria in the year before diagnosis. We examined the impact of gender, and demographic and clinical factors on time from initial hematuria claim to urology visit and on time from initial hematuria claim to hematuria evaluation, including cystoscopy, upper urinary tract imaging and urine cytology. Results: Of 35,646 patients with a hematuria claim in the year preceding bladder cancer diagnosis 97% had a urology visit claim. Mean time to urology visit was 27 days (range 0 to 377). Time to urology visit was longer for women than for men (adjusted HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.87-0.92). Women were more likely to undergo delayed (after greater than 30 days) hematuria evaluation (adjusted OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.07-1.21). Conclusions: We observed longer time to a urology visit for women than for men presenting with hematuria. These findings may explain stage differences in bladder cancer diagnosis and

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

4.6
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