Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 174

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Disparities in uterine cancer epidemiology, treatment, and survival among African Americans in the United States

Open access
Long, B., Liu, F.W., Bristow, R.E.·2013·Gynecologic Oncology

Abstract

Objective The objective of this article is to comprehensively review the scientific literature and summarize the available data regarding the outcome disparities of African American women with uterine cancer. Methods Literature on disparities in uterine cancer was systematically reviewed using the PubMed search engine. Articles from 1992-2012 written in English were reviewed. Search terms included endometrial cancer, uterine cancer, racial disparities, and African American. Results Twenty-four original research articles with a total of 366,299 cases of endometrial cancer (337,597 Caucasian and 28,702 African American) were included. Compared to Caucasian women, African American women comprise 7% of new endometrial cancer cases, while accounting for approximately 14% of endometrial cancer deaths. They are diagnosed with later stage, higher-grade disease, and poorer prognostic histologic types compared to their Caucasian counterparts. They also suffer worse outcomes at every stage, grade, and for every histologic type. The cause of increased mortality is multifactorial. African American and white women have varying incidence of comorbid conditions, genetic susceptibility to malignancy, access to care and health coverage, and socioeconomic status; however, the most consistent contributors to incidence and mortality disparities are histology and socioeconomics. More robust genetic and molecular profile studies are in development to further explain histologic differences. Conclusions Current studies suggest that histologic and socioeconomic factors explain much of the disparity in endometrial cancer incidence and mortality between white and African American patients. Treatment factors likely contributed historically to differences in mortality; however, studies suggest most women now receive equal care. Molecular differences may be an important factor to explain the racial inequities. Coupled with a sustained commitment to increasing access to appropriate care, on-going research in biologic mechanisms underlying histopathologic differences will help address and reduce the number of African American women who disproportionately suffer and die from endometrial malignancy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.05.020

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 174

Metadata

Authors
Long, B., Liu, F. W., & Bristow, R. E.
Venue
Gynecologic Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-09
Volume
130
Issue
3
Pages
652-659
ISSN
0090-8258 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1963829927
Cited by
174
References
2
FWCI
11.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Disparities in uterine cancer epidemiology, treatment, and survival among African Americans in the United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.05.020
The paper
Long, B., Liu, F. W., & Bristow, R. E. (2013). Disparities in uterine cancer epidemiology, treatment, and survival among African Americans in the United States. Gynecologic Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.05.020

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.