-
Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) May 2024Breast cancer is the fifth-ranked cancer globally. Despite early diagnosis and advances in treatment, breast cancer mortality is increasing. This meta-analysis aims to... (Review)
Review
Breast cancer is the fifth-ranked cancer globally. Despite early diagnosis and advances in treatment, breast cancer mortality is increasing. This meta-analysis aims to examine all possible prognostic factors that improve/deteriorate breast cancer-specific survival. MEDLINE, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Ovid, and Google Scholar were systematically searched until September 16, 2023. The retrieved studies from 1995 to 2022 accumulated 1,386,663 cases from 30 countries. A total of 13 out of 22 prognostic factors were significantly associated with breast cancer-specific survival. A random-effects model provided a pooled estimate of the top five poorest prognostic factors, including Stage 4 (HR = 12.12; 95% CI: 5.70, 25.76), followed by Stage 3 (HR = 3.42, 95% CI: 2.51, 4.67), a comorbidity index ≥ 3 (HR = 3.29; 95% CI: 4.52, 7.35), the poor differentiation of cancer cell histology (HR = 2.43; 95% CI: 1.79, 3.30), and undifferentiated cancer cell histology (HR = 2.24; 95% CI: 1.66, 3.01). Other survival-reducing factors include positive nodes, age, race, HER2-receptor positivity, and overweight/obesity. The top five best prognostic factors include different types of mastectomies and breast-conserving therapies (HR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.44, 0.70), medullary histology (HR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.53, 0.72), higher education (HR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.68, 0.77), and a positive estrogen receptor status (HR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.65, 0.94). Heterogeneity was observed in most studies. Data from developing countries are still scarce.
PubMed: 38920543
DOI: 10.3390/diseases12060111 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jun 2024Breast cancer (BC) is one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide. There are observed disparities in patients with disability as compared to those without... (Review)
Review
Breast cancer (BC) is one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide. There are observed disparities in patients with disability as compared to those without disability, which leads to poor BC screening attendance, thereby worsening disease management. Aim: The aim of this systematic review is to investigate if there are disparities in screening rates in women with disability as compared to those without disability, as well as the different factors that pose barriers to patients with disability for enrolment in BC screening programs. : Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically reviewed published articles between 2008 and 2023, which assessed different factors that contributed to poor attendance in BC screening programs held across different countries. Detailed study characteristics were obtained, and methodological quality assessment was performed on the individual studies included in this review. : A total of fifty-three articles were identified as eligible studies based on the pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. These included 7,252,913 patients diagnosed with BC (913,902 patients with disability/6,339,011 patients without disability). The results revealed there are demographic, clinical, financial, and service-related barriers that contributed to lower screening rates in disabled patients as compared to non-disabled. Patient age is the most common factor, with the highest effect observed for 80 years (vs. 30-44 years) [odds ratio (OR) = 13.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 8.27-23.47), < 0.0001], followed by race/ethnicity for Hispanic (vs. non-Hispanic white) [OR = 9.5 (95%CI = 1.0-91.9), < 0.05]. Additionally, patients with multiple disabilities had the highest rate of dropouts [OR = 27.4 (95%CI = 21.5-33.3)]. Other factors like education, income, marital status, and insurance coverage were essential barriers in screening programs. This study presents a holistic view of all barriers to poor BC screening attendance in disabled patients, thereby exacerbating health inequalities. A standardized approach to overcome the identified barriers and the need for a tailored guideline, especially for disability groups, is inevitable.
PubMed: 38892994
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13113283 -
Translational Lung Cancer Research May 2024We previously demonstrated in a meta-analysis there was no difference in risk ratio (RR) of lung cancer detected by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening among...
Race, age at diagnosis and histological characteristics of lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS) and ever-smokers in low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
We previously demonstrated in a meta-analysis there was no difference in risk ratio (RR) of lung cancer detected by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening among female never-smokers (NS) and male ever-smokers (ES) in Asia. LDCT screening significantly decreased lung cancer death among Asian NS compared to Asian ES (RR =0.27, P<0.001).
METHODS
We investigated if race, age at diagnosis, and histology further differentiate lung cancer diagnosed by LDCT among in NS and ES using the 14 studies from our previous meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Twelve publications reported relevant data utilized in this study. From five Asian and one international studies, Asian ES had similar risk of lung cancer diagnosed at baseline screening as Asian NS [RR =0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-1.24] but among non-Asian ES had a 4.56 times significantly higher risk than non-Asian NS (RR =4.56; 95% CI: 2.85-7.28). The baseline incidence of lung cancer in never-smoker (LCINS) was approximately 2.3 times higher among Asian NS than non-Asian NS (0.62% 0.27%, P=0.001). Asian ES had about half the baseline incidence of lung cancer diagnosed as non-Asian ES (0.65% 1.26%). LCINS was diagnosed at 1.98 years younger than ES (95% CI: -3.38 to -0.58) (four studies) and exhibited a higher proportion of adenocarcinoma (ADC) (96.58% 70.37%).
CONCLUSIONS
Among normal-risk individuals, LCINS had a significantly higher likelihood of being diagnosed among Asians than non-Asians, predominantly manifesting as ADC and diagnosed approximately 2 years younger than ES suggesting that the age limit to initiate lung cancer screening in NS may be set lower compared to LDCT lung cancer screening among ES.
PubMed: 38854936
DOI: 10.21037/tlcr-23-816 -
JAMA Health Forum Jun 2024The five 1997 Office of Management and Budget races in the US include American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other...
IMPORTANCE
The five 1997 Office of Management and Budget races in the US include American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White, with Hispanic ethnicity. Despite the Affordable Care Act mandating Office of Management and Budget-based collecting and reporting standards, race and ethnicity publishing in medical journals is inconsistent, despite being necessary to achieve health equity.
OBJECTIVE
To quantify race and ethnicity reporting rates and calculate representation quotients (RQs) in published oncology clinical trials.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
In this systematic review, PubMed and Embase were queried for phase 2/3 clinical trials of the 6 most common noncutaneous solid cancers, published between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022, in 4 high-impact journals. Trial characteristics were recorded. The RQs for each race and ethnicity were calculated by dividing the percent of representation in each clinical trial publication by the percent of year-matched, site-specific incident cancers in the US, compared with Kruskal-Wallis tests with Bonferroni correction (BC). Reporting was compared between journal publications and ClinicalTrials.gov.
FINDINGS
Among 1202 publications evaluated, 364 met inclusion criteria: 16 JAMA, 241 Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19 Lancet, and 88 New England Journal of Medicine. Publications included 268 209 patients (171 132 women [64%]), with a median of 356 (IQR, 131-800) patients per publication. Reported race and ethnicity included American Indian or Alaska Native in 52 (14%) publications, Asian in 196 (54%), Black or African American in 215 (59%), Hispanic in 67 (18%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander in 28 (8%), and White in 254 (70%). Median RQ varied across race (P < .001 BC), with 1.04 (IQR, 0.09-4.77) for Asian, 0.98 (IQR, 0.86-1.06) for White, 0.42 (IQR, 0.12-0.75) for Black or African American, and 0.00 (IQR, 0.00-0.00) for both American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander patients. Sensitivity analyses showed similar findings on subset analysis for US-only clinical trials. There was significantly less race and ethnicity reporting in the clinical trial publications compared with ClinicalTrials.gov documentation for American Indian or Alaska Native (14% vs 45%; P < .001 per McNemar χ2 test with continuity correction [MC]) and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (8% vs 43%; P < .001 MC).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
While most phase 2/3 oncology clinical trials published in high-impact journals report race and ethnicity, most did not report American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander racial categories. Our findings support a call to action for consistent journal policies and transparent race and ethnicity reporting, in alignment with Affordable Care Act-concordant race and ethnicity federal reporting requirements.
Topics: Humans; Racial Groups; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; United States; Neoplasms; Ethnicity
PubMed: 38848090
DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.1388 -
BMC Medical Ethics May 2024Intersectionality is a concept that originated in Black feminist movements in the US-American context of the 1970s and 1980s, particularly in the work of feminist...
BACKGROUND
Intersectionality is a concept that originated in Black feminist movements in the US-American context of the 1970s and 1980s, particularly in the work of feminist scholar and lawyer Kimberlé W. Crenshaw. Intersectional approaches aim to highlight the interconnectedness of gender and sexuality with other social categories, such as race, class, age, and ability to look at how individuals are discriminated against and privileged in institutions and societal power structures. Intersectionality is a "traveling concept", which also made its way into bioethical research.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to answer the question of where and how the concept of intersectionality is applied in bioethical research. The PubMed and Web of Science databases were systematically searched and 192 articles addressing bioethical topics and intersectionality were finally included.
RESULTS
The qualitative analysis resulted in a category system with five main categories: (1) application purpose and function, (2) social dimensions, (3) levels, (4) health-care disciplines and academic fields, and (5) challenges, limitations, and critique. The variety of academic fields and health-care disciplines working with the concept ranges from psychology, through gynaecology to palliative care and deaf studies. Important functions that the concept of intersectionality fulfils in bioethical research are making inequities visible, creating better health data collections and embracing self-reflection. Intersectionality is also a critical praxis and fits neatly into the overarching goal of bioethics to work toward social justice in health care. Intersectionality aims at making research results relevant for respective communities and patients, and informs the development of policies.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review is, to the best of our knowledge, the first one to provide a full overview of the reference to intersectionality in bioethical scholarship. It creates a basis for future research that applies intersectionality as a theoretical and methodical tool for analysing bioethical questions.
Topics: Humans; Bioethics; Female; Feminism; Bioethical Issues
PubMed: 38783289
DOI: 10.1186/s12910-024-01057-5 -
Investigational New Drugs Jun 2024In the era of precision oncology (PO), systemic therapies for patients (pts) with solid tumors have shifted from chemotherapy (CT) to targeted therapy (TT) and...
In the era of precision oncology (PO), systemic therapies for patients (pts) with solid tumors have shifted from chemotherapy (CT) to targeted therapy (TT) and immunotherapy (IO). This systematic survey describes features of trials enrolling between 2010 and 2020, focusing on inclusion criteria, type of dose escalation scheme (DES) utilized, and use of expansion cohorts (ECs). A literature search identified phase I studies in adults with solid tumors published January 1, 2000- December 31, 2020 from 12 journals. We included only studies enrolling between 2010 and 2020 to better capture the PO era. Two reviewers abstracted data; a third established concordance. Of 10,744 studies, 10,195 were non-topical or enrolled prior to 2010; 437 studies were included. The most common drug classes were TT (47.6%), IO (22%), and CT (6.9%). In studies which reported race, patients were predominantly white (61.7%) or Asian (25.7%), followed by black (6.5%) or other (6.1%). Heterogeneity was observed in the reporting and specification of study inclusion criteria. Only 40.1% of studies utilized ECs, and among the studies which used ECS, 46.6% were defined by genomic selection. Rule-based DES were used in 89% of trials; a 3+3 design was used in 80.5%. Of all drugs tested, 37.5% advanced to phase II, while 10.3% garnered regulatory licensure (for an indication tested in phase I). In the era of PO, TT and IO have emerged as the most studied agents in phase I trials. Rule-based DES, which are more relevant for escalating CT, are still chiefly utilized.
Topics: Humans; Neoplasms; Precision Medicine; Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic; Antineoplastic Agents; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Immunotherapy; Medical Oncology
PubMed: 38775890
DOI: 10.1007/s10637-024-01445-z -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Aug 2024The demographic characteristics of patients with eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) are poorly understood. Population-based assessments of EGID demographics...
BACKGROUND
The demographic characteristics of patients with eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) are poorly understood. Population-based assessments of EGID demographics may indicate health disparities in diagnosis.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to characterize the demographic distribution of EGIDs and evaluate the potential for bias in reporting patient characteristics.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review, extracting data on age, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, body mass index, insurance, and urban/rural residence on EGID patients and the source population. Differences in proportions were assessed by chi-square tests. Demographic reporting was compared to recent guidelines.
RESULTS
Among 50 studies that met inclusion/exclusion criteria, 12 reported ≥1 demographic feature in both EGID and source populations. Except for age and sex or gender, demographics were rarely described (race = 4, ethnicity = 1, insurance = 1) or were not described (body mass index, urban/rural residence). A higher proportion of male subjects was observed for EoE or esophageal eosinophilia relative to the source population, but no difference in gender or sex distribution was observed for other EGIDs. "Sex" and "gender" were used interchangeably, and frequently only the male proportion was reported. Reporting of race and ethnicity was inconsistent with guidelines.
CONCLUSION
Current data support a male predominance for EoE only. Evidence was insufficient to support enrichment of EGIDs in any particular racial, ethnic, or other demographic group. Population-based studies presenting demographics on both cases and source populations are needed. Implementation of guidelines for more inclusive reporting of demographic characteristics is crucial to prevent disparities in timely diagnosis and management of patients with EGIDs.
PubMed: 38745866
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacig.2024.100260 -
Thrombosis Research Jun 2024COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racialized populations, with particular impact among individuals of Black individuals. However, it is unclear whether... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racialized populations, with particular impact among individuals of Black individuals. However, it is unclear whether disparities in venous thromboembolic (VTE) complications exist between Black individuals and those belonging to other racial groups with confirmed SARS-CoV2 infections.
OBJECTIVE
To summarize the prevalence and moderators associated with VTE among Black COVID-19 patients in minoritized settings, and to compare this to White and Asian COVID-19 patients according to sex, age, and comorbid health conditions (heart failure, cancer, obesity, hypertension).
DESIGN SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and CENTRAL for articles or reports published from inception to February 15, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Reports on VTE among Black individuals infected with SARS-CoV2, in countries where Black people are considered a minority population group.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Study characteristics and results of eligible studies were independently extracted by 2 pairs of reviewers. VTE prevalence was extracted, and risk of bias was assessed. Prevalence estimates of VTE prevalence among Black individuals with COVID19 in each study were pooled. Where studies provided race-stratified VTE prevalence among COVID19 patients, odds ratios were generated using a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Prevalence of VTE, comprising of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.
RESULTS
Ten studies with 66,185 Black individuals reporting the prevalence of COVID-19 associated VTE were included. Weighted median age of included studies was 47.60. Pooled prevalence of COVID-19 associated VTE was 7.2 % (95 % CI, 3.8 % - 11.5 %) among Black individuals. Among individuals with SARS-CoV2 infections, Black population had higher risks of VTE compared to their White (OR = 1.79, [95 % CI 1.28-2.53], p < .001) or Asian (OR = 2.01, [95 % CI, 1.14-3.60], p = .017) counterparts, or patients with other racial identities (OR = 2.01, [95 % CI, 1.39, 2.92]; p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Black individuals with COVID-19 had substantially higher risk of VTE compared to White or Asian individuals. Given racial disparities in thrombotic disease burden related to COVID-19, medical education, research, and health policy interventions are direly needed to ensure adequate disease awareness among Black individuals, to facilitate appropriate diagnosis and treatment among Black patients with suspected and confirmed VTE, and to advocate for culturally safe VTE prevention strategies, including pre-existing inequalities to the COVID-19 pandemic that persist after the crisis.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Venous Thromboembolism; White People; Prevalence; SARS-CoV-2; Asian People; Female; Male; Risk Factors; Minority Groups; Black People
PubMed: 38733691
DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2024.05.007 -
Frontiers in Psychology 2024Ethnic-racial identity (ERI) development refers to how individuals' experiences, beliefs, and attitudes influence understanding of ethnic-racial group membership....
BACKGROUND
Ethnic-racial identity (ERI) development refers to how individuals' experiences, beliefs, and attitudes influence understanding of ethnic-racial group membership. Messages about race, from multiple ecosystems, influence identity development and how individuals come to form their ERI. There has been a shift in ERI research to focus on Multiracial populations, however, most of the research focus is on Black/white biracial and general, non-specified Multiracial populations. The ERI development process and experience for persons of other Multiracial backgrounds (e.g., AfroLatinx or AsianBlack) is not as extensively studied. This systematic literature review aims to elucidate the existing conceptualization of Multiracial ERI development for non-Black/white biracial and general Multiracial populations in the United States.
METHODS
A comprehensive search strategy was employed across multiple academic databases to identify relevant studies based on explicit inclusion criteria. The initial search resulted in 1,846 articles, but when only Black/white biracial and non-specified general Multiracial studies were eliminated from this review, only 18 articles met the criteria for inclusion.
RESULTS
Common themes emerged from the reviewed literature, including the importance of spaces, conflicting social messages directed at Multiracial individuals, and coping responses used by Multiracial individuals when faced with challenges by family members and peers regarding their multiracial identity.
DISCUSSION
The findings underscore the need for a more nuanced exploration of ERI development among diverse Multiracial populations. Understanding the unique strengths, experiences, and challenges of different Multiracial populations beyond the Black-white biracial paradigm is essential for understanding ERI development across and between different Multiracial populations in today's world.
PubMed: 38725948
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1307624 -
BMJ Open May 2024To characterise sex and gender-based analysis (SGBA) and diversity metric reporting, representation of female/women participants in acute care trials and temporal...
OBJECTIVE
To characterise sex and gender-based analysis (SGBA) and diversity metric reporting, representation of female/women participants in acute care trials and temporal changes in reporting before and after publication of the 2016 Sex and Gender Equity in Research guideline.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
We searched MEDLINE for trials published in five leading medical journals in 2014, 2018 and 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Trials that enrolled acutely ill adults, compared two or more interventions and reported at least one clinical outcome.
DATA ABSTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
4 reviewers screened citations and 22 reviewers abstracted data, in duplicate. We compared reporting differences between intensive care unit (ICU) and cardiology trials.
RESULTS
We included 88 trials (75 (85.2%) ICU and 13 (14.8%) cardiology) (n=111 428; 38 140 (34.2%) females/women). Of 23 (26.1%) trials that reported an SGBA, most used a forest plot (22 (95.7%)), were prespecified (21 (91.3%)) and reported a sex-by-intervention interaction with a significance test (19 (82.6%)). Discordant sex and gender terminology were found between headings and subheadings within baseline characteristics tables (17/32 (53.1%)) and between baseline characteristics tables and SGBA (4/23 (17.4%)). Only 25 acute care trials (28.4%) reported race or ethnicity. Participants were predominantly white (78.8%) and male/men (65.8%). No trial reported gendered-social factors. SGBA reporting and female/women representation did not improve temporally. Compared with ICU trials, cardiology trials reported significantly more SGBA (15/75 (20%) vs 8/13 (61.5%) p=0.005).
CONCLUSIONS
Acute care trials in leading medical journals infrequently included SGBA, female/women and non-white trial participants, reported race or ethnicity and never reported gender-related factors. Substantial opportunity exists to improve SGBA and diversity metric reporting and recruitment of female/women participants in acute care trials.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022282565.
Topics: Humans; Female; Male; Critical Care; Periodicals as Topic; Sex Factors; Journal Impact Factor; Clinical Trials as Topic; Gender Equity; Cardiology
PubMed: 38719297
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081118