Cyrus Washington1, Curtiland Deville2. 1. Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 401 N Broadway, Weinberg Suite 1440, Baltimore, MD, 21231, USA. cdeville@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review and summarize the reported health disparities and inequities in diagnostic imaging for prostate cancer. METHODS: We queried the PubMed search engine for original publications studying disparate utilization of diagnostic imaging for prostate cancer. Query terms were as follows: prostate AND cancer AND diagnostic AND imaging AND (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) OR computed tomography (CT) OR bone scintigraphy OR positron emission tomography (PET)-CT)) AND (inequities OR disparities OR socioeconomic OR race). Studies were included if they involved United States patients, had diagnostic imaging as a part of their care, and addressed health inequities. RESULTS: A total of 104 studies were captured in the initial query with 17 meeting inclusion criteria, comprising 10 population-based analyses, 5 single institutional analyses, 1 multi-institutional analysis, and 1 review. Socioeconomic status and race were frequently associated with imaging utilization and guideline-concordant care. SEER analyses revealed that African-American men had higher odds of experiencing overuse of pelvic CT/pelvic MRI and bone scans, while older men experienced underuse. Higher income and younger age were more likely to receive imaging that was adherent to NCCN guidelines. African-American and Hispanic men were less likely than white men to receive prostate multiparametric MRI. CONCLUSION: Race, age, and socioeconomic status play a significant role in the diagnostic management of prostate cancer. Certain demographics are more disparately affected and less likely to receive guideline-concordant care. Continued research and interventions are needed to ensure appropriate and accessible diagnostic imaging for prostate cancer and ultimately the delivery of quality and equitable care.
PURPOSE: To review and summarize the reported health disparities and inequities in diagnostic imaging for prostate cancer. METHODS: We queried the PubMed search engine for original publications studying disparate utilization of diagnostic imaging for prostate cancer. Query terms were as follows: prostate AND cancer AND diagnostic AND imaging AND (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) OR computed tomography (CT) OR bone scintigraphy OR positron emission tomography (PET)-CT)) AND (inequities OR disparities OR socioeconomic OR race). Studies were included if they involved United States patients, had diagnostic imaging as a part of their care, and addressed health inequities. RESULTS: A total of 104 studies were captured in the initial query with 17 meeting inclusion criteria, comprising 10 population-based analyses, 5 single institutional analyses, 1 multi-institutional analysis, and 1 review. Socioeconomic status and race were frequently associated with imaging utilization and guideline-concordant care. SEER analyses revealed that African-American men had higher odds of experiencing overuse of pelvic CT/pelvic MRI and bone scans, while older men experienced underuse. Higher income and younger age were more likely to receive imaging that was adherent to NCCN guidelines. African-American and Hispanic men were less likely than white men to receive prostate multiparametric MRI. CONCLUSION: Race, age, and socioeconomic status play a significant role in the diagnostic management of prostate cancer. Certain demographics are more disparately affected and less likely to receive guideline-concordant care. Continued research and interventions are needed to ensure appropriate and accessible diagnostic imaging for prostate cancer and ultimately the delivery of quality and equitable care.
Authors: Courtney A Sommer; Karyn B Stitzenberg; Sue Tolleson-Rinehart; William R Carpenter; Timothy S Carey Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2011-05-17 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Vickie L Shavers; Martin Brown; Carrie N Klabunde; Arnold L Potosky; William Davis; Judd Moul; Angela Fahey Journal: Med Care Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Farhood Farjah; David R Flum; Scott D Ramsey; Patrick J Heagerty; Rebecca Gaston Symons; Douglas E Wood Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Michael S Leapman; Rong Wang; Henry S Park; James B Yu; Jeffrey C Weinreb; Cary P Gross; Xiaomei Ma Journal: Urology Date: 2018-08-11 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Robert T Dess; Holly E Hartman; Brandon A Mahal; Payal D Soni; William C Jackson; Matthew R Cooperberg; Christopher L Amling; William J Aronson; Christopher J Kane; Martha K Terris; Zachary S Zumsteg; Santino Butler; Joseph R Osborne; Todd M Morgan; Rohit Mehra; Simpa S Salami; Amar U Kishan; Chenyang Wang; Edward M Schaeffer; Mack Roach; Thomas M Pisansky; William U Shipley; Stephen J Freedland; Howard M Sandler; Susan Halabi; Felix Y Feng; James J Dignam; Paul L Nguyen; Matthew J Schipper; Daniel E Spratt Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 31.777