4.1 Article

Evaluating Potential Racial Inequities in Low-dose Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
卷 112, 期 2, 页码 209-214

出版社

NATL MED ASSOC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnma.2019.10.002

关键词

Lung cancer screening; Health disparities; Primary cares; Minonty health; Health promotion; Disease prevention

资金

  1. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Policy Research Scholars program [73921]
  2. National Cancer Institute [1K01CA218473-01A1, 1R01CA150980-04S1]
  3. National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health [R25CA116339]
  4. North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute [2KR691512]
  5. National Comprehensive Cancer Network/Pfizer Independent Grants for Learning and Change

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the US, and significant racial disparities exist in rung cancer outcomes. For example, Black men experience higher lung cancer incidence and mortality rates than their White counterparts. New screening recommendations for low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) promote earlier detection of lung cancer in at-risk populations and can potentially help mitigate racial disparities in lung cancer mortality if administered equitably. Yet, little is known about the extent of racial differences in uptake of LDCT. Objective: To evaluate potential racial disparities in LDCT screening in a large community-based cancer center in central North Carolina. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of the initial patients undergoing LDCT in a community-based cancer center (n = 262). We used the Pearson chi-squared test to assess potential racial disparities in LDCT screening. Results: Study results suggest that Black patients may be less likely than White patients to receive LDCT screening when eligible (chi(2) = 51.41, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Collaboration among healthcare providers. researchers. and decision makers is needed to promote LDCT equity.

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

4.1
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