4.3 Article

Disentangling the effects of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status of neighborhood in cancer stage distribution in New York City

期刊

CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL
卷 24, 期 6, 页码 1069-1078

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10552-013-0184-2

关键词

Cancer; Disparity; Ethnicity; Race; Registry; Socioeconomic status

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stage at diagnosis is an important prognostic factor for the majority of cancers; it may be an indicator for quality of access to health care and is usually correlated with socioeconomic status (SES) and ethnicity/race. We aimed to investigate the association between stage of cancer at diagnosis with neighborhood of residence (as proxy for SES) and ethnicity/race, while controlling for each other, in selected areas of New York City (NYC). The cancer summary data (1999-2008) were provided by the New York State Cancer Registry. Multinomial logistic regression models were applied to calculate risk estimates for being diagnosed with late- or unknown-stage (versus early-stage) cancers in two low-SES and two high-SES neighborhoods of NYC and among several ethnic/racial groups for all cancers combined and cancers of the female breast, lung, colorectum, and prostate, with additional adjustments for sex (for all cancers combined), age, and year of diagnosis. A total of 34,981 cancer cases were included in this study. There were significant and independent ethnic/racial and neighborhood disparities in stage of cancer at diagnosis of most of the cancers studied. The effect of ethnicity/race on the disparity appeared stronger than the effect of neighborhood. There was an overall decreasing trend in the proportion of late-stage cancers, particularly for colorectal cancer, and to a greater extent in the proportion of cancers without staging information. In this population, ethnicity/race seems to be a stronger predictor for late stage at diagnosis than SES, stressing the need for ethnicity/race-oriented programs for cancer screening and improved access to care.

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

4.3
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