4.1 Review

Racial Differences in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Prostate Cancer

期刊

INTERNATIONAL NEUROUROLOGY JOURNAL
卷 20, 期 -, 页码 112-119

出版社

KOREAN CONTINENCE SOC
DOI: 10.5213/inj.1632722.361

关键词

Prostatic neoplasms; Healthcare disparities; African Americans

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Disparities between African American and Caucasian men in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis and treatment in the United States have been well established, with significant racial disparities documented at all stages of PCa management, from differences in the type of treatment offered to progression-free survival or death. These disparities appear to be complex in nature, involving biological determinants as well as socioeconomic and cultural aspects. We present a review of the literature on racial disparities in the diagnosis of PCa, treatment, survival, and genetic susceptibility. Significant differences were found among African Americans and whites in the incidence and mortality rates; namely, African Americans are diagnosed with PCa at younger ages than whites and usually with more advanced stages of the disease, and also undergo prostate-specific antigen testing less frequently. However, the determinants of the high rate of incidence and aggressiveness of PCa in African Americans remain unresolved. This pattern can be attributed to socioeconomic status, detection occurring at advanced stages of the disease, biological aggressiveness, family history, and differences in genetic susceptibility. Another risk factor for PCa is obesity. We found many discrepancies regarding treatment, including a tendency for more African American patients to be in watchful waiting than whites. Many factors are responsible for the higher incidence and mortality rates in African Americans. Better screening, improved access to health insurance and clinics, and more homogeneous forms of treatment will contribute to the reduction of disparities between African Americans and white men in PCa incidence and mortality.

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