Evidence of Racial Disparities in the Lung Cancer Screening Process: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
lung cancer screening
meta-analysis
race
systematic review
Journal
Journal of general internal medicine
ISSN: 1525-1497
Titre abrégé: J Gen Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8605834
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2022
11 2022
Historique:
received:
15
01
2022
accepted:
12
04
2022
pubmed:
16
7
2022
medline:
25
10
2022
entrez:
15
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest computed tomography for high-risk individuals reduces lung cancer mortality, with greater reduction observed in Black participants in clinical trials. While racial disparities in lung cancer mortality exist, less is known about disparities in LCS participation. We conducted a systematic review to explore LCS participation in Black compared with White patients in the USA. A systematic review was conducted through a search of published studies in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied-Health Literature Database, from database inception through October 2020. We included studies that examined rates of LCS participation and compared rates by race. Studies were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. We screened 18,300 titles/abstracts; 229 studies were selected for full-text review, of which nine studies met inclusion criteria. Studies were categorized into 2 groups: studies that reported the screening rate among an LCS-eligible patient population, and studies that reported the screening rate among a patient population referred for LCS. Median LCS participation rates were 14.4% (range 1.7 to 62.6%) for eligible patient studies and 68.5% (range 62.6 to 88.8%) for referred patient studies. The meta-analyses showed screening rates were lower in the Black compared to White population among the LCS-eligible patient studies ([OR]=0.43, [95% CI: 0.25, 0.74]). However, screening rates were the same between Black and White patients in the referred patient studies (OR=0.94, [95% CI: 0.74, 1.19]). Black LCS-eligible patients are being screened at a lower rate than White patients but have similar rates of participation once referred. Differences in referrals by providers may contribute to the racial disparity in LCS participation. More studies are needed to identify barriers to LCS referral and develop interventions to increase provider awareness of the importance of LCS in Black patients. Trial Registry PROSPERO; No.: CRD42020214213; URL: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest computed tomography for high-risk individuals reduces lung cancer mortality, with greater reduction observed in Black participants in clinical trials. While racial disparities in lung cancer mortality exist, less is known about disparities in LCS participation. We conducted a systematic review to explore LCS participation in Black compared with White patients in the USA.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted through a search of published studies in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied-Health Literature Database, from database inception through October 2020. We included studies that examined rates of LCS participation and compared rates by race. Studies were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
We screened 18,300 titles/abstracts; 229 studies were selected for full-text review, of which nine studies met inclusion criteria. Studies were categorized into 2 groups: studies that reported the screening rate among an LCS-eligible patient population, and studies that reported the screening rate among a patient population referred for LCS. Median LCS participation rates were 14.4% (range 1.7 to 62.6%) for eligible patient studies and 68.5% (range 62.6 to 88.8%) for referred patient studies. The meta-analyses showed screening rates were lower in the Black compared to White population among the LCS-eligible patient studies ([OR]=0.43, [95% CI: 0.25, 0.74]). However, screening rates were the same between Black and White patients in the referred patient studies (OR=0.94, [95% CI: 0.74, 1.19]).
DISCUSSION
Black LCS-eligible patients are being screened at a lower rate than White patients but have similar rates of participation once referred. Differences in referrals by providers may contribute to the racial disparity in LCS participation. More studies are needed to identify barriers to LCS referral and develop interventions to increase provider awareness of the importance of LCS in Black patients. Trial Registry PROSPERO; No.: CRD42020214213; URL: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35838866
doi: 10.1007/s11606-022-07613-2
pii: 10.1007/s11606-022-07613-2
pmc: PMC9585128
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3731-3738Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Organisme : Health Services Research and Development
ID : CIN 13-407
Informations de copyright
© 2022. This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply.
Références
Cancer Treat Res Commun. 2020;24:100198
pubmed: 32736218
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 Jul;71(4):299-314
pubmed: 34015860
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017 Aug;14(8):1320-1325
pubmed: 28406708
Clin Trials. 2011 Apr;8(2):214-23
pubmed: 21242173
Am J Epidemiol. 2020 Oct 1;189(10):1065-1075
pubmed: 32219369
Radiology. 2019 Feb;290(2):278-287
pubmed: 30620258
J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Feb;29(2):364-87
pubmed: 24002624
Br J Cancer. 2021 Jan;124(2):315-332
pubmed: 32901135
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008 Aug;17(8):1937-44
pubmed: 18687583
J Natl Med Assoc. 2020 Apr;112(2):209-214
pubmed: 32067762
BMC Cancer. 2020 Jun 16;20(1):561
pubmed: 32546140
Clin Lung Cancer. 2020 Jul;21(4):326-332
pubmed: 32184050
Ann Thorac Surg. 2022 Apr;113(4):1291-1298
pubmed: 34033745
Ann Intern Med. 2014 Mar 4;160(5):330-8
pubmed: 24378917
Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Aug;80(2):291-8
pubmed: 24674351
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 01;5(9):1318-1324
pubmed: 31246249
J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Jun;21(6):553-8
pubmed: 16808735
Chest. 2017 Sep;152(3):587-597
pubmed: 28450031
Prev Med. 2016 Dec;93:96-105
pubmed: 27687535
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019 Oct;16(10):1280-1285
pubmed: 31298946
Cancer Causes Control. 2019 Mar;30(3):235-240
pubmed: 30377905
Lung Cancer. 2020 Aug;146:134-144
pubmed: 32535225
Cancer Causes Control. 2005 Sep;16(7):809-21
pubmed: 16132791
JAMA. 2021 Mar 09;325(10):962-970
pubmed: 33687470
J Clin Oncol. 2021 Sep 1;39(25):2739-2741
pubmed: 34181464
J Am Coll Radiol. 2020 Dec;17(12):1591-1601
pubmed: 32681828
Clin Lung Cancer. 2020 May;21(3):e206-e211
pubmed: 32001154
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 30;10(11):e0143789
pubmed: 26618478
J Thorac Oncol. 2016 Nov;11(11):1856-1862
pubmed: 27346412
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2018 Jan;15(1):69-75
pubmed: 28933940
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 3;10:ED000142
pubmed: 31643080
Am J Public Health. 2010 Feb;100(2):364-74
pubmed: 20019302
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Jul 15;192(2):200-8
pubmed: 25928649
Soc Sci Med. 2018 Feb;199:219-229
pubmed: 28532892
CA Cancer J Clin. 2019 May;69(3):211-233
pubmed: 30762872
Clin Lung Cancer. 2018 Jan;19(1):51-57
pubmed: 28652090
J Natl Med Assoc. 2018 Oct;110(5):424-427
pubmed: 30129479
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
JAMA. 2021 Mar 9;325(10):971-987
pubmed: 33687468
N Engl J Med. 2006 Jan 26;354(4):333-42
pubmed: 16436765
Prev Med Rep. 2018 Feb 03;10:49-54
pubmed: 29552458
Chest. 2020 Nov;158(5):2200-2210
pubmed: 32562612
Clin Lung Cancer. 2020 Sep;21(5):e329-e336
pubmed: 32371161
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120