4.4 Review

Disparities at Presentation, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Survival in African American Men, Affected by Prostate Cancer

期刊

PROSTATE
卷 71, 期 9, 页码 985-997

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pros.21314

关键词

prostate cancer; African American population; health disparities

资金

  1. National Institute of Health (NIH) [1 P20 MD003375-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND. Prostate cancer (PCa) remains the most common malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer death among men in the United States. PCa exhibits the most striking racial disparity, as African American men are at 1.4 times higher risk of being diagnosed, and 2-3 times higher risk of dying of PCa, compared to Caucasian men. The etiology of the disparity has not been clearly elucidated. The objective of this article is to critically review the literature and summarize the most prominent PCa racial disparities accompanied by proposed explanations. METHODS. The present literature on disparities at presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and survival of African American men affected by PCa was systematically reviewed. Original research as well as relevant review articles were included. RESULTS. African American men persistently present with more advanced disease than Caucasian men, are administered different treatment regimens than Caucasian men, and have shorter progression-free survival following treatment. In addition, African American men report more treatment-related side-effects that translates to the diminished quality of life (QOL). CONCLUSIONS. PCa racial disparity exists at stages of presentation, diagnosis, treatment regimens, and subsequent survival, and the QOL. The disparities are complex involving biological, socio-economic, and socio-cultural determinants. These mounting results highlight an urgent need for future clinical, scientific, and socio-cultural research involving trans-disciplinary teams to elucidate the causes for PCa racial disparities. Prostate 71: 985-997, 2011. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.4
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