| Title |
Survival among Black and White patients with renal cell carcinoma in an equal-access health care system
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Causes & Control, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10552-015-0594-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jie Lin, Shelia H. Zahm, Craig D. Shriver, Mark Purdue, Katherine A. McGlynn, Kangmin Zhu |
| Abstract |
Unequal access to health care may be a reason for shorter survival among Black patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) than among their White counterparts. No studies have investigated survival disparity among RCC patients in an equal-access health care delivery system. This study aimed to examine racial differences in survival among clear cell RCC patients in the Department of Defense's (DoD) Military Health System (MHS), which provides equal access to care to all persons. The study used the DoD's Automated Central Tumor Registry to identify 2056 White patients and 370 Black patients diagnosed with clear cell RCC between 1988 and 2004. The subjects were followed through 2007 with a median follow-up time of 4.8 years. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were compared and a Cox model was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) associated with survival by race. During follow-up, 1,027 White and 158 Black patients died. The Kaplan-Meier curves showed that Black patients had more favorable overall survival than did White patients (log rank p = 0.031). After adjustment for demographic, tumor, and treatment variables, the Cox model showed no statistically significant racial difference overall (adjusted HR 1.07, 95 % CI 0.90-1.28) or stratified by age, sex or tumor stage. However, among patients who did not undergo surgery, Black patients had poorer survival than White patients. The lack of racial difference in survival among RCC patients in the MHS may be related to equal access to health care. Improved access could reduce the survival disparity among RCC patients in the general population. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 10 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 32% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 16 | 52% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 May 2015.
All research outputs
#21,553,856
of 24,059,832 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Causes & Control
#1,992
of 2,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,175
of 267,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Causes & Control
#22
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,059,832 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,198 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,742 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.