Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39039483›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2024

Utilisation of endocrine therapy for cancer in Indigenous peoples: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Habtamu Mellie Bizuayehu, Sewunet Admasu Belachew, Shafkat Jahan, Abbey Diaz, Siddhartha Baxi, Kalinda Griffiths, Gail Garvey

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Habtamu Mellie Bizuayehu *First Nations Cancer and Wellbeing Research Program, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. h.bizuayehu@uq.edu.au.
Sewunet Admasu Belachew *First Nations Cancer and Wellbeing Research Program, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. s.admasubelachew@uq.edu.au.
Shafkat JahanFirst Nations Cancer and Wellbeing Research Program, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Abbey DiazFirst Nations Cancer and Wellbeing Research Program, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Siddhartha BaxiGenesisCare Australia, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.
Kalinda GriffithsPoche SA+NT, Flinders University, Darwin, Australia.
Gail GarveyFirst Nations Cancer and Wellbeing Research Program, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) funded Centre of Research Excellence (CRE) in Targeted Approaches to Improve Cancer Services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians TACTICS; #1153027National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Investigator Grant 1176651
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndigenous peoples worldwide experience inequitable cancer outcomes, and it is unclear if this is underpinned by differences in or inadequate use of endocrine treatment (ET), often used in conjunction with other cancer treatments. Previous studies examining ET use in Indigenous peoples have predominately focused on the sub-national level, often resulting in small sample sizes with limited statistical power. This systematic review aimed to collate the findings ofarticles on ET utilisation for Indigenous cancer patients and describe relevant factors that may influence ET use.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting ET use for cancer among Indigenous populations worldwide. PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for relevant articles. A random-effect meta-analysis was used to pool proportions of ET use. We also performed a subgroup analysis (such as with sample sizes) and a meta-regression to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity. A socio-ecological model was used to present relevant factors that could impact ET use.

resultsThirteen articles reported ET utilisation among Indigenous populations, yielding a pooled estimate of 67% (95% CI:54 - 80), which is comparable to that of Indigenous populations 67% (95% CI: 53 - 81). However, among studies with sufficiently sized study sample/cohorts (≥ 500), Indigenous populations had a 14% (62%; 95% CI:43 - 82) lower ET utilisation than non-Indigenous populations (76%; 95% CI: 60 - 92). The ET rate in Indigenous peoples of the USA (e.g., American Indian) and New Zealand (e.g., Māori) was 72% (95% CI:56-88) and 60% (95% CI:49-71), respectively. Compared to non-Indigenous populations, a higher proportion of Indigenous populations were diagnosed with advanced cancer, at younger age, had limited access to health services, lower socio-economic status, and a higher prevalence of comorbidities.

conclusionsIndigenous cancer patients have lower ET utilisation than non-Indigenous cancer patients, despite the higher rate of advanced cancer at diagnosis. While reasons for these disparities are unclear, they are likely reflecting, at least to some degree, inequitable access to cancer treatment services. Strengthening the provision of and access to culturally appropriate cancer care and treatment services may enhance ET utilisation in Indigenous population. This study protocol was registered on Prospero (CRD42023403562).

Indexed as

Indigenous PeoplesNeoplasmsAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalHumansAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalCancerEndocrine treatmentEthnicityFirst Nations peoplesIndigenous peoplesSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39039483
PMCPMC11264465

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.