ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Racial and ethnic differences in bladder cancer diagnosis, treatment, and specialty care access among
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Bladder cancer (BC) is the second most common genitourinary malignancy, with substantial racial disparities in survival. This study assessed racial and ethnic differences across key stages of BC care among US Medicare beneficiaries. Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed Medicare fee-for-service claims (2021-2022) and included patients with newly diagnosed BC (ICD-10-CM code C67). Differences in diagnosis, specialty care access, and treatment across racial and ethnic groups (White, Black or African American, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native, Other, or Unknown) were evaluated using rate ratios (RRs), with White patients as the reference group. Median times from diagnosis to first specialist referral and to treatment initiation were also assessed. Outcomes are reported using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 136, 172 patients met the study criteria: 116, 043 (85.2%) White, 7, 768 (5.7%) Black or African American, 5, 733 (4.2%) Hispanic, 2, 729 (2.0%) Asian or Pacific Islander, 365 (<1%) American Indian or Alaska Native, and 3, 534 (2.6%) patients of Other or Unknown race. The RRs for BC diagnosis and receipt of any treatment were below 1.0 across all racial and ethnic groups. Compared with White patients, Hispanic and Black or African American patients had less access to specialists (Hispanic: RR = 0.891; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.865-0.918; Black or African American: RR = 0.930; 95% CI, 0.906-0.954), had lower rates of receiving any treatment (Hispanic: RR = 0.806; 95% CI, 0.765-0.850; Black or African American: RR = 0.814; 95% CI, 0.775-0.856), and experienced longer median times from diagnosis to treatment initiation (31 days for both groups vs 25 days for White patients). Hispanic and American Indian or Alaska Native patients also had longer median times from initial diagnosis to first specialist visit (26 and 28 days, respectively) compared with White patients (23 days). Conclusion: Racial disparities in BC care across the care continuum were observed. These findings can inform conversations with population health decision makers and policy-level stakeholders to identify solutions to help improve care for minoritized racial and ethnic groups. Further research is needed to understand the underlying drivers and develop evidence-based strategies to ensure equitable access to care for all patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.