Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

Geographical Variations in Prostate Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Review of International Evidence

Read this article at

Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      Background: Previous reviews of geographical disparities in the prostate cancer continuum from diagnosis to mortality have identified a consistent pattern of poorer outcomes with increasing residential disadvantage and for rural residents. However, there are no contemporary, systematic reviews summarizing the latest available evidence. Our objective was to systematically review the published international evidence for geographical variations in prostate cancer indicators by residential rurality and disadvantage.

      Methods: Systematic searches of peer-reviewed articles in English published from 1/1/1998 to 30/06/2018 using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Informit databases. Inclusion criteria were: population was adult prostate cancer patients; outcome measure was PSA testing, prostate cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, access to and use of services, survival, and prostate cancer mortality with quantitative results by residential rurality and/or disadvantage. Studies were critically appraised using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

      Results: Overall 169 studies met the inclusion criteria. Around 50% were assessed as high quality and 50% moderate. Men from disadvantaged areas had consistently lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and prostate cancer incidence, poorer survival, more advanced disease and a trend toward higher mortality. Although less consistent, predominant patterns by rurality were lower PSA testing, prostate cancer incidence and survival, but higher stage disease and mortality among rural men. Both geographical measures were associated with variations in access and use of prostate cancer-related services for low to high risk disease.

      Conclusions: This review found substantial evidence that prostate cancer indicators varied by residential location across diverse populations and geographies. While wide variations in study design limited comparisons across studies, our review indicated that internationally, men living in disadvantaged areas, and to a lesser extent more rural areas, face a greater prostate cancer burden. This review highlights the need for a better understanding of the complex social, environmental, and behavioral reasons for these variations, recognizing that, while important, geographical access is not the only issue. Implementing research strategies to help identify these processes and to better understand the central role of disadvantage to variations in health outcome are crucial to inform the development of evidence-based targeted interventions.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 192

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

      Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: found
        • Article: not found

        International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates.

        Wide variation exists internationally for prostate cancer (PCa) rates due to differences in detection practices, treatment, and lifestyle and genetic factors. We present contemporary variations in PCa incidence and mortality patterns across five continents using the most recent data from the International Agency for Research on Cancer. PCa incidence and mortality estimates for 2008 from GLOBOCAN are presented. We also examine recent trends in PCa incidence rates for 40 countries and mortality rates for 53 countries from 1985 and onward via join-point analyses using an augmented version of Cancer Incidence in Five Continents and the World Health Organization mortality database. Estimated PCa incidence rates remain most elevated in the highest resource counties worldwide including North America, Oceania, and western and northern Europe. Mortality rates tend to be higher in less developed regions of the world including parts of South America, the Caribbean, and sub-Saharan Africa. Increasing PCa incidence rates during the most recent decade were observed in 32 of the 40 countries examined, whereas trends tended to stabilize in 8 countries. In contrast, PCa mortality rates decreased in 27 of the 53 countries under study, whereas rates increased in 16 and remained stable in 10 countries. PCa incidence rates increased in nearly all countries considered in this analysis except in a few high-income countries. In contrast, the increase in PCa mortality rates mainly occurred in lower resource settings, with declines largely confined to high-resource countries. Copyright © 2012 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Impact of socioeconomic status on cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis: selected findings from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results: National Longitudinal Mortality Study

          Background Population-based cancer registry data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) are mainly based on medical records and administrative information. Individual-level socioeconomic data are not routinely reported by cancer registries in the United States because they are not available in patient hospital records. The U.S. representative National Longitudinal Mortality Study (NLMS) data provide self-reported, detailed demographic and socioeconomic data from the Social and Economic Supplement to the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS). In 1999, the NCI initiated the SEER-NLMS study, linking the population-based SEER cancer registry data to NLMS data. The SEER-NLMS data provide a new unique research resource that is valuable for health disparity research on cancer burden. We describe the design, methods, and limitations of this data set. We also present findings on cancer-related health disparities according to individual-level socioeconomic status (SES) and demographic characteristics for all cancers combined and for cancers of the lung, breast, prostate, cervix, and melanoma. Methods Records of cancer patients diagnosed in 1973–2001 when residing 1 of 11 SEER registries were linked with 26 NLMS cohorts. The total number of SEER matched cancer patients that were also members of an NLMS cohort was 26,844. Of these 26,844 matched patients, 11,464 were included in the incidence analyses and 15,357 in the late-stage diagnosis analyses. Matched patients (used in the incidence analyses) and unmatched patients were compared by age group, sex, race, ethnicity, residence area, year of diagnosis, and cancer anatomic site. Cohort-based age-adjusted cancer incidence rates were computed. The impact of socioeconomic status on cancer incidence and stage of diagnosis was evaluated. Results Men and women with less than a high school education had elevated lung cancer rate ratios of 3.01 and 2.02, respectively, relative to their college educated counterparts. Those with family annual incomes less than $12,500 had incidence rates that were more than 1.7 times the lung cancer incidence rate of those with incomes $50,000 or higher. Lower income was also associated with a statistically significantly increased risk of distant-stage breast cancer among women and distant-stage prostate cancer among men. Conclusions Socioeconomic patterns in incidence varied for specific cancers, while such patterns for stage were generally consistent across cancers, with late-stage diagnoses being associated with lower SES. These findings illustrate the potential for analyzing disparities in cancer outcomes according to a variety of individual-level socioeconomic, demographic, and health care characteristics, as well as by area measures available in the linked database.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            1Cancer Research Centre, Cancer Council Queensland , Brisbane, QLD, Australia
            2Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University , Southport, QLD, Australia
            3School of Mathematical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology , Brisbane, QLD, Australia
            4School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology , Brisbane, QLD, Australia
            5Institute for Resilient Regions, University of Southern Queensland , Toowoomba, QLD, Australia
            6St Vincent's Private Hospital , Toowoomba, QLD, Australia
            7School of Nursing & Midwifery, University of Southern Queensland , Toowoomba, QLD, Australia
            8Health and Wellness Institute, Edith Cowan University , Perth, WA, Australia
            9Faculty of Health, University of Technology , Sydney, NSW, Australia
            Author notes

            Edited by: Imtiaz Ahmad Siddiqui, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, United States

            Reviewed by: Francis P. Boscoe, University at Albany, United States; Cristina Bosetti, Istituto Di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Italy

            *Correspondence: Peter D. Baade peterbaade@ 123456cancerqld.org.au

            This article was submitted to Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, a section of the journal Frontiers in Oncology

            Contributors
            Journal
            Front Oncol
            Front Oncol
            Front. Oncol.
            Frontiers in Oncology
            Frontiers Media S.A.
            2234-943X
            08 April 2019
            2019
            : 9
            6463763
            10.3389/fonc.2019.00238
            Copyright © 2019 Dasgupta, Baade, Aitken, Ralph, Chambers and Dunn.

            This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

            Counts
            Figures: 7, Tables: 7, Equations: 0, References: 202, Pages: 35, Words: 22720
            Funding
            Funded by: National Health and Medical Research Council 10.13039/501100000925
            Funded by: Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia 10.13039/501100000927
            Funded by: University of Southern Queensland 10.13039/501100001795
            Categories
            Oncology
            Systematic Review

            Comments

            Comment on this article