BACKGROUND: It is recognised that the risk of prostate cancer is higher in black men than in white men worldwide. Recent studies suggest that a number of genetic mutations in black men predispose them to this disease; hence, race as well as environmental factors such as diet and migration are thought to be the determining factors. METHODS: This review compares data from the United States (US), which suggest that African-American men have a 60% higher risk for developing prostate cancer with poorer prognosis in comparison with their white counterparts, with similar studies carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) and also in African and Caribbean countries. CONCLUSIONS: Studies from the United States and the United Kingdom came to significantly different conclusions, and this has implications for policy development, awareness raising among black men in each country and clinical practice. British Journal of Cancer (2011) 105, 481-485. doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.273 www.bjcancer.com (C) 2011 Cancer Research UK
BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination offers a unique opportunity for the primary prevention of cervical cancer. Studies suggest that knowledge and attitudes about the vaccine are likely to influence uptake. One limitation of most studies assessing HPV vaccine knowledge, attitudes and acceptability is their under representation of ethnic minorities. It is important to ensure that our understanding of HPV knowledge and attitudes include all ethnic groups in the UK. This article reviews research that has considered knowledge, acceptability and attitudes about HPV and the HPV vaccine among ethnic minorities in the UK. METHODS: Articles in Medline, CINAHL and PsycINFO (January 2000-March 2010) were searched. RESULTS: A total of 17 UK-based papers examined knowledge, attitudes or acceptability related to HPV vaccination in the 'lay' population (parents, adolescents or the general population as opposed to health professionals) and reported findings by ethnicity. CONCLUSION: Findings seem to suggest lower awareness of HPV and lower acceptability of the vaccination, which could be important if they are reflected in uptake. More research is needed with ethnic minority groups, particularly in the context of the vaccination programme. British Journal of Cancer (2011) 105, 486-492. doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.272 www.bjcancer.com (C) 2011 Cancer Research UK
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine the incidence and survival of lung cancer patients from several different ethnic groups in a large ethnically diverse population in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Data on residents of South East England diagnosed with lung cancer between 1998 and 2003 were extracted from the Thames Cancer Registry database. Age-and socioeconomic deprivation-standardised incidence rate ratios were calculated for males and females in each ethnic group. Overall survival was examined using Cox regression, adjusted for age, socioeconomic deprivation, stage of disease and treatment. Results are presented for White, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Black Caribbean, Black African and Chinese patients, apart from female survival results where only the White, South Asian and Black ethnic groups were analysed. RESULTS: Compared with other ethnic groups of the same sex, Bangladeshi men, White men and White women had the highest incidence rates. Bangladeshi men had consistently higher survival estimates compared with White men (fully adjusted hazard ratio 0.46; P<0.001). Indian (0.84; P = 0.048), Black Caribbean (0.87; P = 0.47) and Black African (0.68; P = 0.007) men also had higher survival estimates. South Asian (0.73; P = 0.006) and Black (0.74; P = 0.004) women had higher survival than White women. CONCLUSION: Smoking prevention messages need to be targeted for different ethnic groups to ensure no groups are excluded. The apparent better survival of South Asian and Black patients is surprising, and more detailed follow-up studies are needed to verify these results. British Journal of Cancer (2011) 105, 1049-1053. doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.282 www.bjcancer.com Published online 23 August 2011 (C) 2011 Cancer Research UK
