BACKGROUND: Although advances in early detection and treatment of cancer improve overall population survival, these advances may not benefit all population groups equally and may heighten racial/ethnic differences in survival. METHODS: We identified cancer cases in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program, who were ages > or = 20 years and diagnosed with one invasive cancer in 1995 to 1999 (n = 580,225). We used 5-year relative survival rates to measure the degree to which mortality from each cancer is amenable to medical interventions (amenability index). We used Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate survival differences between each racial/ethnic minority group relative to Whites, by the overall amenability index, and three levels of amenability (nonamenable, partly amenable, and mostly amenable cancers, corresponding to cancers with 5-year relative survival rate < 40%, 40-69%, and > or = 70%, respectively), adjusting for gender, age, disease stage, and county-level poverty concentration. RESULTS: As amenability increased, racial/ethnic differences in cancer survival increased for African Americans, American Indians/Native Alaskans, and Hispanics relative to Whites. For example, the hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for African Americans versus Whites from nonamenable, partly amenable, and mostly amenable cancers were 1.05 (1.03-1.07), 1.38 (1.34-1.41), and 1.41 (1.37-1.46), respectively. Asians/Pacific Islanders had similar or longer survival relative to Whites across amenability levels; however, several subgroups experienced increasingly poorer survival with increasing amenability. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survival disparities for most racial/ethnic minority populations widen as cancers become more amenable to medical interventions. Efforts in developing cancer control measures must be coupled with specific strategies for reducing the expected disparities.
BACKGROUND: Although advances in early detection and treatment of cancer improve overall population survival, these advances may not benefit all population groups equally and may heighten racial/ethnic differences in survival. METHODS: We identified cancer cases in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program, who were ages > or = 20 years and diagnosed with one invasive cancer in 1995 to 1999 (n = 580,225). We used 5-year relative survival rates to measure the degree to which mortality from each cancer is amenable to medical interventions (amenability index). We used Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate survival differences between each racial/ethnic minority group relative to Whites, by the overall amenability index, and three levels of amenability (nonamenable, partly amenable, and mostly amenable cancers, corresponding to cancers with 5-year relative survival rate < 40%, 40-69%, and > or = 70%, respectively), adjusting for gender, age, disease stage, and county-level poverty concentration. RESULTS: As amenability increased, racial/ethnic differences in cancer survival increased for African Americans, American Indians/Native Alaskans, and Hispanics relative to Whites. For example, the hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for African Americans versus Whites from nonamenable, partly amenable, and mostly amenable cancers were 1.05 (1.03-1.07), 1.38 (1.34-1.41), and 1.41 (1.37-1.46), respectively. Asians/Pacific Islanders had similar or longer survival relative to Whites across amenability levels; however, several subgroups experienced increasingly poorer survival with increasing amenability. CONCLUSIONS:Cancer survival disparities for most racial/ethnic minority populations widen as cancers become more amenable to medical interventions. Efforts in developing cancer control measures must be coupled with specific strategies for reducing the expected disparities.
Authors: H L Howe; P A Wingo; M J Thun; L A Ries; H M Rosenberg; E G Feigal; B K Edwards Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2001-06-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: J W Eley; H A Hill; V W Chen; D F Austin; M N Wesley; H B Muss; R S Greenberg; R J Coates; P Correa; C K Redmond Journal: JAMA Date: 1994-09-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Limin X Clegg; Elizabeth Ward; Lynn A G Ries; Xiaocheng Wu; Patricia M Jamison; Phyllis A Wingo; Holly L Howe; Robert N Anderson; Brenda K Edwards Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: George Rust; Shun Zhang; Khusdeep Malhotra; Leroy Reese; Luceta McRoy; Peter Baltrus; Lee Caplan; Robert S Levine Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kemi M Doll; Ethan M Basch; Ke Meng; Emma L Barber; Paola A Gehrig; Wendy R Brewster; Anne-Marie Meyer Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Daniel A Barocas; Darryl T Gray; Jay H Fowke; Nathaniel D Mercaldo; Jeffrey D Blume; Sam S Chang; Michael S Cookson; Joseph A Smith; David F Penson Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Parisa Tehranifar; Abhishek Goyal; Jo C Phelan; Bruce G Link; Yuyan Liao; Xiaozhou Fan; Manisha Desai; Mary Beth Terry Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2016-03-12 Impact factor: 2.506