Ethnic differences in prostate cancer survival in New Zealand: a national study

Sneyd, Mary Jane

doi:10.1007/s10552-008-9166-1

Cited by 19 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mäori had a significantly poorer cancer survival rate than non-Mäori even after controlling for demographics or disease characteristics (see also Sneyd, 2008). Examination of the medical notes found that Mäori patients were significantly less likely than other ethnic groups to receive chemotherapy and were more likely to experience a delay of at least eight weeks before starting chemotherapy (Hill, Sarfati, Blakely, Robson, Purdie, Dennett, et al, 2010).…”

Section: Do Mäori Receive Poorer-quality Healthcare?mentioning

confidence: 97%

What you can't see can hurt you: How do stereotyping, implicit bias and stereotype threat affect Māori health?

Houkamau¹

2016

MAI Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of studies demonstrate Mäori receive a poorer standard of healthcare than Päkehä and other non-Mäori in New Zealand. Implicit bias on the part of healthcare providers has been cited as a key contributor to health inequities internationally; however, the concept has not yet been explored in relation to Mäori health. This paper addresses that research gap and describes a theoretical basis for further research on the role of bias for Mäori health outcomes. Drawing from empirical research and theories formulated in social psychology, the paper considers the relevance of implicit bias, stereotyping and stereotype threat for Mäori health outcomes. These have not been integrated and applied to the problem of Mäori health inequities per se; however, it is proposed that they provide a useful conceptual lens for understanding how interpersonal dynamics between Mäori and Päkehä help perpetuate health disparities. Suggestions for further research are also made.

show abstract

Section: Do Mäori Receive Poorer-quality Healthcare?mentioning

confidence: 97%

What you can't see can hurt you: How do stereotyping, implicit bias and stereotype threat affect Māori health?

Houkamau¹

2016

MAI Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[9][10][11][12][13][14] There is clear evidence that Māori have poorer survival than other ethnic groups for most types of cancer. [9][10][11][12]14 (Pacific patients have poorer cancer survival compared with European patients, although their outcomes are somewhat better than those of Māori. 10 ).…”

Section: Inequalities In Cancer Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Māori experience a significant survival disadvantage for almost all the most common cancer sites (including lung, breast and colorectum), while Māori with cancers of the prostate or cervix are twice as likely to die from their disease compared with their European or non-Māori counterparts. 9,12,14 The exception to this pattern is melanoma, for which European patients have little or no survival advantage. 10,11,14 Why do Māori patients do worse?…”

Section: Inequalities In Cancer Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indigenous inequalities in cancer: what role for health care?

Hill

Sarfati

Robson

et al. 2012

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Poorer cancer survival in Indigenous populations contributes to health inequalities in both New Zealand and Australia. Methods: We reviewed recent evidence of cancer treatment and outcomes among Māori and non-Māori New Zealanders and examined the range of factors that may contribute to poorer survival in Māori. Results: There is clear evidence that Māori have poorer cancer survival compared with other ethnic groups, particularly European New Zealanders. Two recent studies show that Māori patients receive poorer quality treatment for cancers of the lung and colon, even after adjusting for patient factors. These findings suggest the need to consider how the health-care system as a whole may disadvantage Indigenous patients. Discussion: We present a framework for considering how inequalities may arise in the delivery of cancer care, taking account of the health system as a whole -including the structure and organization of cancer services -as well as treatment processes and patient factors. A key feature of this framework is that it directs attention towards system-level factors affecting cancer care, including the location, resourcing and cultural focus of services. Our analysis suggests a need to look beyond individual patient factors in order to improve the quality and equity of cancer services and to optimize cancer survival in Indigenous populations.

show abstract

“…Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second leading cause of increased cancer incidence and cancer-related deaths among men in the United States [1], [2]. Despite treatment, the high mortality rates in PCa are attributed to metastasis, which is the main obstacle in PCa treatment [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cysteine (C)-X-C Receptor 4 Undergoes Transportin 1-Dependent Nuclear Localization and Remains Functional at the Nucleus of Metastatic Prostate Cancer Cells

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR), Cysteine (C)-X-C Receptor 4 (CXCR4), plays an important role in prostate cancer metastasis. CXCR4 is generally regarded as a plasma membrane receptor where it transmits signals that support transformation, progression and eventual metastasis. Due to the central role of CXCR4 in tumorigenesis, therapeutics approaches such as antagonist and monoclonal antibodies have focused on receptors that exist on the plasma membrane. An emerging concept for G-protein coupled receptors is that they may localize to and associate with the nucleus where they retain function and mediate nuclear signaling. Herein, we demonstrate that CXCR4 associated with the nucleus of malignant prostate cancer tissues. Likewise, expression of CXCR4 was detected in nuclear fractions among several prostate cancer cell lines, compared to normal prostate epithelial cells. Our studies identified a nuclear pool of CXCR4 and we defined a nuclear transport pathway for CXCR4. We reveal a putative nuclear localization sequence (NLS), ‘RPRK’, within CXCR4 that contributed to nuclear localization. Additionally, nuclear CXCR4 interacted with Transportinβ1 and Transportinβ1-binding to CXCR4 promoted its nuclear translocation. Importantly, Gαi immunoprecipitation and calcium mobilization studies indicated that nuclear CXCR4 was functional and participated in G-protein signaling, revealing that the nuclear pool of CXCR4 retained function. Given the suggestion that functional, nuclear CXCR4 may be a mechanism underlying prostate cancer recurrence, increased metastatic ability and poorer prognosis after tumors have been treated with therapy that targets plasma membrane CXCR4, these studies addresses a novel mechanism of nuclear signaling for CXCR4, a novel mechanism of clinical targeting, and demonstrate an active nuclear pool that provides important new information to illuminate what has been primarily clinical reports of nuclear CXCR4.

show abstract

Ethnic differences in prostate cancer survival in New Zealand: a national study

Cited by 19 publications

References 14 publications

What you can't see can hurt you: How do stereotyping, implicit bias and stereotype threat affect Māori health?

What you can't see can hurt you: How do stereotyping, implicit bias and stereotype threat affect Māori health?

Indigenous inequalities in cancer: what role for health care?

Cysteine (C)-X-C Receptor 4 Undergoes Transportin 1-Dependent Nuclear Localization and Remains Functional at the Nucleus of Metastatic Prostate Cancer Cells

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About