Application of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in the Study of Prostate Cancer Disparities: A Systematic Review

Introduction: PCa is one of the cancers that exhibits the widest disparity gaps. Geographical place of residence has been shown to be associated with healthcare access/utilization and PCa outcomes. Geographical Information Systems (GIS) are widely being utilized for PCa disparities research, however, inconsistencies in their application exist. This systematic review will summarize GIS application within PCa disparities research, highlight gaps in the literature, and propose alternative approaches. Methods: This paper followed the methods of the Cochrane Collaboration and the criteria set of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Articles published in peer-reviewed journals were searched through the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases until December 2022. The main inclusion criteria were employing a GIS approach and examining a relationship between geographical components and PCa disparities. The main exclusion criteria were studies conducted outside the US and those that were not published in English. Results: A total of 25 articles were included; 23 focused on PCa measures as outcomes: incidence, survival, and mortality, while only 2 examined PCa management. GIS application in PCa disparities research was grouped into three main categories: mapping, processing, and analysis. GIS mapping allowed for the visualization of quantitative, qualitative, and temporal trends of PCa factors. GIS processing was mainly used for geocoding and smoothing of PCa rates. GIS analysis mainly served to evaluate global spatial autocorrelation and distribution of PCa cases, while local cluster identification techniques were mainly employed to identify locations with poorer PCa outcomes, soliciting public health interventions. Discussion: Varied GIS applications and methodologies have been used in researching PCa disparities. Multiple geographical scales were adopted, leading to variations in associations and outcomes. Geocoding quality varied considerably, leading to less robust findings. Limitations in cluster-detection approaches were identified, especially when variations were captured using the Spatial Scan Statistic. GIS approaches utilized in other diseases might be applied within PCa disparities research for more accurate inferences. A novel approach for GIS research in PCa disparities could be focusing more on geospatial disparities in procedure utilization especially when it comes to PCa screening techniques. Conclusions: This systematic review summarized and described the current state and trend of GIS application in PCa disparities research. Although GIS is of crucial importance when it comes to PCa disparities research, future studies should rely on more robust GIS techniques, carefully select the geographical scale studied, and partner with GIS scientists for more accurate inferences. Such interdisciplinary approaches have the potential to bridge the gaps between GIS and cancer prevention and control to further advance cancer equity.