4.5 Article

Sex, racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in patients with metastatic bone disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 125, 期 4, 页码 766-774

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jso.26765

关键词

bone; dispartiy; metastasis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study analyzed disparities in the incidence of metastatic bone disease (MBD) based on sex, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, finding higher rates among lower socioeconomic groups and specific racial/ethnic populations. This suggests delays in diagnosis and limited access to screening modalities for these populations.
Background We have analyzed sex, race/ethnicity or socioeconomic disparities in the incidence of metastatic bone disease (MBD). Methods Patients with the diagnosis of MBD at presentation for five most common primary anatomical sites was extracted from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Census tract-level dataset. Mean incidence of MBD for different sex, racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups were compared. Results The five most common anatomical sites with MBD at presentation include lung: (n = 59 739), prostate (n = 19 732), breast (n = 16 244), renal (n = 7718) and colon (n = 3068). There was an increase in incidence of MBD among cancers originating from prostate (annual percentage change [APC] 4.94), renal (APC 2.55), and colon (APC 3.21) (p < 0.05 for all). Non-Hispanic Blacks had higher incidence of MBD for prostate and breast primary sites (p < 0.001). Non-Hispanic American Indian Alaskan Native had higher incidence of MBD for cancers originating from renal (p < 0.001) and colon (p = 0.049). A higher incidence of MBD was seen in lower socioeconomic status (SES) groups for the selected sites (p < 0.001). Conclusions These findings suggest that there are multiple sex-related, racial/ethnic and SES disparities in the incidence of MBD from the 5 most common primary sites. Higher incidence seen among lower SES suggests delay in diagnosis and limited access to screening modalities.

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

4.5
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