CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 201Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningHealth disparities and outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Eliminating Racial Disparities in Colorectal Cancer in the Real World: It Took a Village

Open access
Grubbs, Stephen S., Polite, Blase N., Carney, John, Bowser, William, Rogers, Jill, Katurakes, Nora, Hess, Paula, Paskett, Electra D.·2013·Journal of Clinical Oncology
DOI 10.1200/jco.2012.47.8412PMC PMC3661932
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the United States, with more than 102,000 new patients diagnosed per year. 1 It is, however, one of the few cancers that is highly preventable through the use of routine screening, 2 which can also prevent death resulting from CRC. 3,4 CRC is also one cancer that continues to demonstrate widening incidence and survival disparities between whites and African Americans.1,5 Although the reasons for these disparities are multifactorial, advanced stage at diagnosis may explain up to 50% of the survival disparity.6 This reality is not unique to CRC.Those who are poor, underserved, or minorities are more likely to get cancer and die as a result of it than those who are rich or white.This is a fact, and it is the current reality of cancer care in the United States, as documented in thousands of peer-reviewed articles, including the focus of an Institute of Medicine report.6a The shame for CRC is that the higher incidence rates and advanced stage of diagnosis are likely affected by differences in screening rates between whites and racial and ethnic minority populations.Multiple studies have documented lower rates of up-to-date screening among minority patients as well as lower rates of screening with colonoscopy.[7][8][9][10][11] Other studies have also found lower rates of follow-up for abnormalities detected on screening among minorities.12 Lack of insurance and usual sources of care certainly contribute to these disparities, but even when screening is universally provided, such as in the Medicare program, screening rates and follow-up after abnormal findings are still lower among African Americans compared with whites.7,13,14 Several randomized trials have demonstrated that provision of CRC screening combined with outreach efforts can significantly increase CRC screening rates among minority populations.[15][16][17][18][19] Moreover, patient navigation can increase the proportion of patients who receive appropriate and timely follow-up for abnormalities and facilitate the timely start of treatment.[20][21][22] In Journal of Clinical Oncology, Robbins et al 23 reported on a study that identified disparities in CRC mortality rates among African American patients with late-stage disease.In an editorial, Paskett 24 suggested three steps to reduce CRC disparities: one, increase CRC

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 · 10.1200/jco.2012.47.8412

Cites

29 of 29 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Howlader N, 2012, SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2009 (Vintage 2009 Populations)
  2. American Cancer Society, 2008, Colorectal Cancer Facts and Figures for African Americans 2008-2010
  3. James TM, 2006, Ethn Dis, 16, 228
  4. Hu CY, 2011, Am J Manag Care, 17, 329

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 201

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Grubbs, S. S., Polite, B. N., Carney, J., Bowser, W., Rogers, J., Katurakes, N., Hess, P., & Paskett, E. D.
Affiliations
  • Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; and Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE
  • The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
  • United States House of Representatives (US)
  • Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover, DE
  • Delaware Division of Public Health (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Publisher
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Published
2013-06-01
Volume
31
Issue
16
Pages
1928-1930
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
DOI
10.1200/jco.2012.47.8412
PMC
PMC3661932
OpenAlex
W2131142429
Cited by
201
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 3
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (P30CA016058)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
colorectal cancer, racial disparities, African Americans, colorectal cancer screening, patient navigation, screening outreach, colonoscopy, delayed diagnosis, health disparities, underserved populations
MeSH terms
Black or African American, Female, Humans, Male, Colorectal Neoplasms, White People, Healthcare Disparities

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