Analysis of ‘🎗️ Cancer Rates by U.S. State’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/yamqwe/cancer-rates-by-u-s-statee on 13 February 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

About this dataset

In the following maps, the U.S. states are divided into groups based on the rates at which people developed or died from cancer in 2013, the most recent year for which incidence data are available.

The rates are the numbers out of 100,000 people who developed or died from cancer each year.

Incidence Rates by State
The number of people who get cancer is called cancer incidence. In the United States, the rate of getting cancer varies from state to state.

• *Rates are per 100,000 and are age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population.

• ‡Rates are not shown if the state did not meet USCS publication criteria or if the state did not submit data to CDC.

• †Source: U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2013 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta (GA): Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer Institute; 2016. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/uscs.

Death Rates by State
Rates of dying from cancer also vary from state to state.

• *Rates are per 100,000 and are age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population.

• †Source: U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2013 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta (GA): Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer Institute; 2016. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/uscs.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/state.htm

This dataset was created by Adam Helsinger and contains around 100 samples along with Range, Rate, technical information and other features such as: - Range - Rate - and more.

How to use this dataset

• Analyze Range in relation to Rate
• Study the influence of Range on Rate
• More datasets

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit Adam Helsinger

Start A New Notebook!

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of cancer (in persons of all ages). Please read the below information to gain a full understanding of what the data shows and how it should be interpreted.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGYThe analysis was carried out using Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data, derived from NHS Digital, relating to cancer (in persons of all ages).This information was recorded at the GP practice level. However, GP catchment areas are not mutually exclusive: they overlap, with some areas covered by 30+ GP practices. Therefore, to increase the clarity and usability of the data, the GP-level statistics were converted into statistics based on Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) census boundaries.The percentage of each MSOA’s population (all ages) with cancer was estimated. This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment areaOf the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of registered patients that have that illness The estimated percentage of each MSOA’s population with cancer was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of people in each MSOA with cancer, within the relevant age range.Each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have cancerB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have cancerAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA that are estimated to have cancer, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where it’s estimated a large number of people suffer from cancer, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with cancer within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.LIMITATIONS1. GP data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. Note also that some GPs (997 out of 7670) did not submit data in either year. This dataset should be viewed in conjunction with the ‘Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers’ dataset, to determine areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year, or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution. Note also that there are some rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).2. Although all of the obesity/inactivity-related illnesses listed can be caused or exacerbated by inactivity and obesity, it was not possible to distinguish from the data the cause of the illnesses in patients: obesity and inactivity are highly unlikely to be the cause of all cases of each illness. By combining the data with data relating to levels of obesity and inactivity in adults and children (see the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset), we can identify where obesity/inactivity could be a contributing factor, and where interventions to reduce obesity and increase activity could be most beneficial for the health of the local population.3. It was not feasible to incorporate ultra-fine-scale geographic distribution of populations that are registered with each GP practice or who live within each MSOA. Populations might be concentrated in certain areas of a GP practice’s catchment area or MSOA and relatively sparse in other areas. Therefore, the dataset should be used to identify general areas where there are high levels of cancer, rather than interpreting the boundaries between areas as ‘hard’ boundaries that mark definite divisions between areas with differing levels of cancer.TO BE VIEWED IN COMBINATION WITH:This dataset should be viewed alongside the following datasets, which highlight areas of missing data and potential outliers in the data:Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliersLevels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses (England): Missing dataDOWNLOADING THIS DATATo access this data on your desktop GIS, download the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset.DATA SOURCESThis dataset was produced using:Quality and Outcomes Framework data: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.GP Catchment Outlines. Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital. Data was cleaned by Ribble Rivers Trust before use.MSOA boundaries: © Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2021.Population data: Mid-2019 (June 30) Population Estimates for Middle Layer Super Output Areas in England and Wales. © Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. © Crown Copyright 2020.COPYRIGHT NOTICEThe reproduction of this data must be accompanied by the following statement:© Ribble Rivers Trust 2021. Analysis carried out using data that is: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital; © Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2021. © Crown Copyright 2020.CaBA HEALTH & WELLBEING EVIDENCE BASEThis dataset forms part of the wider CaBA Health and Wellbeing Evidence Base.

Number and rate of new cancer cases diagnosed annually from 1992 to the most recent diagnosis year available. Included are all invasive cancers and in situ bladder cancer with cases defined using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Groups for Primary Site based on the World Health Organization International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition (ICD-O-3). Random rounding of case counts to the nearest multiple of 5 is used to prevent inappropriate disclosure of health-related information.

Cancer Mortality & Incidence Rates: (Country LVL)

Investigating Cancer Trends over time

By Data Exercises [source]

About this dataset

This dataset is a comprehensive collection of data from county-level cancer mortality and incidence rates in the United States between 2000-2014. This data provides an unprecedented level of detail into cancer cases, deaths, and trends at a local level. The included columns include County, FIPS, age-adjusted death rate, average death rate per year, recent trend (2) in death rates, recent 5-year trend (2) in death rates and average annual count for each county. This dataset can be used to provide deep insight into the patterns and effects of cancer on communities as well as help inform policy decisions related to mitigating risk factors or increasing preventive measures such as screenings. With this comprehensive set of records from across the United States over 15 years, you will be able to make informed decisions regarding individual patient care or policy development within your own community!

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

This dataset provides comprehensive US county-level cancer mortality and incidence rates from 2000 to 2014. It includes the mortality and incidence rate for each county, as well as whether the county met the objective of 45.5 deaths per 100,000 people. It also provides information on recent trends in death rates and average annual counts of cases over the five year period studied.

This dataset can be extremely useful to researchers looking to study trends in cancer death rates across counties. By using this data, researchers will be able to gain valuable insight into how different counties are performing in terms of providing treatment and prevention services for cancer patients and whether preventative measures and healthcare access are having an effect on reducing cancer mortality rates over time. This data can also be used to inform policy makers about counties needing more target prevention efforts or additional resources for providing better healthcare access within at risk communities.

When using this dataset, it is important to pay close attention to any qualitative columns such as “Recent Trend” or “Recent 5-Year Trend (2)” that may provide insights into long term changes that may not be readily apparent when using quantitative variables such as age-adjusted death rate or average deaths per year over shorter periods of time like one year or five years respectively. Additionally, when studying differences between different counties it is important to take note of any standard FIPS code differences that may indicate that data was collected by a different source with a difference methodology than what was used in other areas studied

Research Ideas

• Using this dataset, we can identify patterns in cancer mortality and incidence rates that are statistically significant to create treatment regimens or preventive measures specifically targeting those areas.
• This data can be useful for policymakers to target areas with elevated cancer mortality and incidence rates so they can allocate financial resources to these areas more efficiently.
• This dataset can be used to investigate which factors (such as pollution levels, access to medical care, genetic make up) may have an influence on the cancer mortality and incidence rates in different US counties

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

License: Dataset copyright by authors - You are free to: - Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially. - Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. - You must: - Give appropriate credit - Provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. - ShareAlike - You must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. - Keep intact - all notices that refer to this license, including copyright notices.

Columns

File: death .csv | Column name | Description | |:-------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------...

Cervical Cancer Risk Factors for Biopsy: This Dataset is Obtained from UCI Repository and kindly acknowledged! This file contains a List of Risk Factors for Cervical Cancer leading to a Biopsy Examination! About 11,000 new cases of invasive cervical cancer are diagnosed each year in the U.S. However, the number of new cervical cancer cases has been declining steadily over the past decades. Although it is the most preventable type of cancer, each year cervical cancer kills about 4,000 women in the U.S. and about 300,000 women worldwide. In the United States, cervical cancer mortality rates plunged by 74% from 1955 - 1992 thanks to increased screening and early detection with the Pap test. AGE Fifty percent of cervical cancer diagnoses occur in women ages 35 - 54, and about 20% occur in women over 65 years of age. The median age of diagnosis is 48 years. About 15% of women develop cervical cancer between the ages of 20 - 30. Cervical cancer is extremely rare in women younger than age 20. However, many young women become infected with multiple types of human papilloma virus, which then can increase their risk of getting cervical cancer in the future. Young women with early abnormal changes who do not have regular examinations are at high risk for localized cancer by the time they are age 40, and for invasive cancer by age 50. SOCIOECONOMIC AND ETHNIC FACTORS Although the rate of cervical cancer has declined among both Caucasian and African-American women over the past decades, it remains much more prevalent in African-Americans -- whose death rates are twice as high as Caucasian women. Hispanic American women have more than twice the risk of invasive cervical cancer as Caucasian women, also due to a lower rate of screening. These differences, however, are almost certainly due to social and economic differences. Numerous studies report that high poverty levels are linked with low screening rates. In addition, lack of health insurance, limited transportation, and language difficulties hinder a poor woman’s access to screening services. HIGH SEXUAL ACTIVITY Human papilloma virus (HPV) is the main risk factor for cervical cancer. In adults, the most important risk factor for HPV is sexual activity with an infected person. Women most at risk for cervical cancer are those with a history of multiple sexual partners, sexual intercourse at age 17 years or younger, or both. A woman who has never been sexually active has a very low risk for developing cervical cancer. Sexual activity with multiple partners increases the likelihood of many other sexually transmitted infections (chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis).Studies have found an association between chlamydia and cervical cancer risk, including the possibility that chlamydia may prolong HPV infection. FAMILY HISTORY Women have a higher risk of cervical cancer if they have a first-degree relative (mother, sister) who has had cervical cancer. USE OF ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES Studies have reported a strong association between cervical cancer and long-term use of oral contraception (OC). Women who take birth control pills for more than 5 - 10 years appear to have a much higher risk HPV infection (up to four times higher) than those who do not use OCs. (Women taking OCs for fewer than 5 years do not have a significantly higher risk.) The reasons for this risk from OC use are not entirely clear. Women who use OCs may be less likely to use a diaphragm, condoms, or other methods that offer some protection against sexual transmitted diseases, including HPV. Some research also suggests that the hormones in OCs might help the virus enter the genetic material of cervical cells. HAVING MANY CHILDREN Studies indicate that having many children increases the risk for developing cervical cancer, particularly in women infected with HPV. SMOKING Smoking is associated with a higher risk for precancerous changes (dysplasia) in the cervix and for progression to invasive cervical cancer, especially for women infected with HPV. IMMUNOSUPPRESSION Women with weak immune systems, (such as those with HIV / AIDS), are more susceptible to acquiring HPV. Immunocompromised patients are also at higher risk for having cervical precancer develop rapidly into invasive cancer. DIETHYLSTILBESTROL (DES) From 1938 - 1971, diethylstilbestrol (DES), an estrogen-related drug, was widely prescribed to pregnant women to help prevent miscarriages. The daughters of these women face a higher risk for cervical cancer. DES is no longer prsecribed.

Age standardized rate of cancer incidence, by selected sites of cancer and sex, three-year average, census metropolitan areas.

Age-standardised rate of mortality from oral cancer (ICD-10 codes C00-C14) in persons of all ages and sexes per 100,000 population.RationaleOver the last decade in the UK (between 2003-2005 and 2012-2014), oral cancer mortality rates have increased by 20% for males and 19% for females1Five year survival rates are 56%. Most oral cancers are triggered by tobacco and alcohol, which together account for 75% of cases2. Cigarette smoking is associated with an increased risk of the more common forms of oral cancer. The risk among cigarette smokers is estimated to be 10 times that for non-smokers. More intense use of tobacco increases the risk, while ceasing to smoke for 10 years or more reduces it to almost the same as that of non-smokers3. Oral cancer mortality rates can be used in conjunction with registration data to inform service planning as well as comparing survival rates across areas of England to assess the impact of public health prevention policies such as smoking cessation.References:(1) Cancer Research Campaign. Cancer Statistics: Oral – UK. London: CRC, 2000.(2) Blot WJ, McLaughlin JK, Winn DM et al. Smoking and drinking in relation to oral and pharyngeal cancer. Cancer Res 1988; 48: 3282-7. (3) La Vecchia C, Tavani A, Franceschi S et al. Epidemiology and prevention of oral cancer. Oral Oncology 1997; 33: 302-12.Definition of numeratorAll cancer mortality for lip, oral cavity and pharynx (ICD-10 C00-C14) in the respective calendar years aggregated into quinary age bands (0-4, 5-9,…, 85-89, 90+). This does not include secondary cancers or recurrences. Data are reported according to the calendar year in which the cancer was diagnosed.Counts of deaths for years up to and including 2019 have been adjusted where needed to take account of the MUSE ICD-10 coding change introduced in 2020. Detailed guidance on the MUSE implementation is available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/causeofdeathcodinginmortalitystatisticssoftwarechanges/january2020Counts of deaths for years up to and including 2013 have been double adjusted by applying comparability ratios from both the IRIS coding change and the MUSE coding change where needed to take account of both the MUSE ICD-10 coding change and the IRIS ICD-10 coding change introduced in 2014. The detailed guidance on the IRIS implementation is available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/impactoftheimplementationofirissoftwareforicd10causeofdeathcodingonmortalitystatisticsenglandandwales/2014-08-08Counts of deaths for years up to and including 2010 have been triple adjusted by applying comparability ratios from the 2011 coding change, the IRIS coding change and the MUSE coding change where needed to take account of the MUSE ICD-10 coding change, the IRIS ICD-10 coding change and the ICD-10 coding change introduced in 2011. The detailed guidance on the 2011 implementation is available at https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20160108084125/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/classifications/international-standard-classifications/icd-10-for-mortality/comparability-ratios/index.htmlDefinition of denominatorPopulation-years (aggregated populations for the three years) for people of all ages, aggregated into quinary age bands (0-4, 5-9, …, 85-89, 90+)

Population based cancer incidence rates were abstracted from National Cancer Institute, State Cancer Profiles for all available counties in the United States for which data were available. This is a national county-level database of cancer data that are collected by state public health surveillance systems. All-site cancer is defined as any type of cancer that is captured in the state registry data, though non-melanoma skin cancer is not included. All-site age-adjusted cancer incidence rates were abstracted separately for males and females. County-level annual age-adjusted all-site cancer incidence rates for years 2006–2010 were available for 2687 of 3142 (85.5%) counties in the U.S. Counties for which there are fewer than 16 reported cases in a specific area-sex-race category are suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of rate estimates; this accounted for 14 counties in our study. Two states, Kansas and Virginia, do not provide data because of state legislation and regulations which prohibit the release of county level data to outside entities. Data from Michigan does not include cases diagnosed in other states because data exchange agreements prohibit the release of data to third parties. Finally, state data is not available for three states, Minnesota, Ohio, and Washington. The age-adjusted average annual incidence rate for all counties was 453.7 per 100,000 persons. We selected 2006–2010 as it is subsequent in time to the EQI exposure data which was constructed to represent the years 2000–2005. We also gathered data for the three leading causes of cancer for males (lung, prostate, and colorectal) and females (lung, breast, and colorectal). The EQI was used as an exposure metric as an indicator of cumulative environmental exposures at the county-level representing the period 2000 to 2005. A complete description of the datasets used in the EQI are provided in Lobdell et al. and methods used for index construction are described by Messer et al. The EQI was developed for the period 2000– 2005 because it was the time period for which the most recent data were available when index construction was initiated. The EQI includes variables representing each of the environmental domains. The air domain includes 87 variables representing criteria and hazardous air pollutants. The water domain includes 80 variables representing overall water quality, general water contamination, recreational water quality, drinking water quality, atmospheric deposition, drought, and chemical contamination. The land domain includes 26 variables representing agriculture, pesticides, contaminants, facilities, and radon. The built domain includes 14 variables representing roads, highway/road safety, public transit behavior, business environment, and subsidized housing environment. The sociodemographic environment includes 12 variables representing socioeconomics and crime. This dataset is not publicly accessible because: EPA cannot release personally identifiable information regarding living individuals, according to the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This dataset contains information about human research subjects. Because there is potential to identify individual participants and disclose personal information, either alone or in combination with other datasets, individual level data are not appropriate to post for public access. Restricted access may be granted to authorized persons by contacting the party listed. It can be accessed through the following means: Human health data are not available publicly. EQI data are available at: https://edg.epa.gov/data/Public/ORD/NHEERL/EQI. Format: Data are stored as csv files. This dataset is associated with the following publication: Jagai, J., L. Messer, K. Rappazzo , C. Gray, S. Grabich , and D. Lobdell. County-level environmental quality and associations with cancer incidence#. Cancer. John Wiley & Sons Incorporated, New York, NY, USA, 123(15): 2901-2908, (2017).

Two datasets that explore causes of death due to cancer in South Africa, drawing on data from the Revised Burden of Disease estimates for the Comparative Risk Factor Assessment for South Africa, 2000. The number and percentage of deaths due to cancer by cause are ranked for persons, males and females in the tables below. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer in SA accounting for 17% of all cancer deaths. This is followed by oesophagus Ca which accounts for 13%, cervix cancer accounting for 8%, breast cancer accounting for 8% and liver cancer which accounts for 6% of all cancers. Many more males suffer from lung and oesophagus cancer than females.

Mortality Rates for Lake County, Illinois. Explanation of field attributes: Average Age of Death – The average age at which a people in the given zip code die. Cancer Deaths – Cancer deaths refers to individuals who have died of cancer as the underlying cause. This is a rate per 100,000. Heart Disease Related Deaths – Heart Disease Related Deaths refers to individuals who have died of heart disease as the underlying cause. This is a rate per 100,000. COPD Related Deaths – COPD Related Deaths refers to individuals who have died of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as the underlying cause. This is a rate per 100,000.

A measure of the number of adults diagnosed with any type of cancer in a year who are still alive five years after diagnosis.

Purpose

This indicator attempts to capture the success of the NHS in preventing people from dying once they have been diagnosed with any type of cancer.

Current version updated: Feb-17

Next version due: Feb-18

One-year and five-year net survival for adults (15-99) in England diagnosed with one of 29 common cancers, by age and sex.

Update 2 March 2023: Following the merger of NHS Digital and NHS England on 1st February 2023 we are reviewing the future presentation of the NHS Outcomes Framework indicators. As part of this review, the annual publication which was due to be released in March 2023 has been delayed. Further announcements about this dataset will be made on this page in due course. A measure of the number of adults diagnosed with any type of cancer in a year who are still alive five years after diagnosis. This indicator attempts to capture the success of the NHS in preventing people from dying once they have been diagnosed with any type of cancer. As of May 2020, please refer to the data tables published by Public Health England (PHE). This publication is released on an annual basis. A link to the PHE publications, within which the data is held, is available via the resource link below. On the publication page select the ‘Data Tables index of cancer survival 20xx to 20xx’. The data for this indicator is available by applying suitable filters to the dataset contained within the 'Data_Complete’ tab. Legacy unique identifier: P01735

Annual percent change and average annual percent change in age-standardized cancer incidence rates since 1984 to the most recent diagnosis year. The table includes a selection of commonly diagnosed invasive cancers, as well as in situ bladder cancer. Cases are defined using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Groups for Primary Site based on the World Health Organization International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition (ICD-O-3) from 1992 to the most recent data year and on the International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision (ICD-9) from 1984 to 1991.

Directly age-standardised registration rate for oral cancer (ICD-10 C00-C14), in persons of all ages, per 100,000 2013 European Standard PopulationRationaleTobacco is a known risk factor for oral cancers (1). In England, 65% of hospital admissions (2014–15) for oral cancer and 64 % of deaths (2014) due to oral cancer were attributed to smoking (2). Oral cancer registration is therefore a direct measure of smoking-related harm. Given the high proportion of these registrations that are due to smoking, a reduction in the prevalence of smoking would reduce the incidence of oral cancer.Towards a Smokefree Generation: A Tobacco Control Plan for England states that tobacco use remains one of our most significant public health challenges and that smoking is the single biggest cause of inequalities in death rates between the richest and poorest in our communities (3).In January 2012 the Public Health Outcomes Framework was published, then updated in 2016. Smoking and smoking related death plays a key role in two of the four domains: Health Improvement and Preventing premature mortality (4).References:(1) GBD 2013 Risk Factors Collaborators. Global, regional and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risk factors in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. The Lancet 2015; 386:10010 2287–2323. (2) Statistics on smoking, England 2016, May 2016; http://content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB20781 (3) Towards a Smokefree Generation: A Tobacco Control Plan for England, July 2017 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/towards-a-smoke-free-generation-tobacco-control-plan-for-england (4) Public Health Outcomes Framework 2016 to 2019, August 2016; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-health-outcomes-framework-2016-to-2019 Definition of numeratorCancer registrations for oral cancer (ICD-10, C00-C14) in the calendar years 2007-09 to 2017-2019. The National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service collects data relating to each new diagnosis of cancer that occurs in England. This does not include secondary cancers. Data are reported according to the calendar year in which the cancer was diagnosed.Definition of denominatorPopulation-years (ONS mid-year population estimates aggregated for the respective years) for people of all ages, aggregated into quinary age bands (0-4, 5-9,…, 85-89, 90+).CaveatsReviews of the quality of UK cancer registry data 1, 2 have concluded that registrations are largely complete, accurate and reliable. The data on cancer registration ‘quality indicators’ (mortality to incidence ratios, zero survival cases and unspecified site) demonstrate that although there is some variability, overall ascertainment and reliability is good. However cancer registrations are continuously being updated, so the number of registrations for each year may not be complete, as there is a small but steady stream of late registrations, some of which only come to light through death certification.1. Huggett C (1995). Review of the Quality and Comparability of Data held by Regional Cancer Registries. Bristol: Bristol Cancer Epidemiology Unit incorporating the South West Cancer Registry. 2. Seddon DJ, Williams EMI (1997). Data quality in population based cancer registration. British Journal of Cancer 76: 667-674.The data presented here replace versions previously published. Population data and the European Standard Population have been revised. ONS have provided an explanation of the change in standard population (available at http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/user-guidance/health-and-life-events/revised-european-standard-population-2013--2013-esp-/index.html )

This dataset contains Age-Adjusted Rate, Confidence Interval, Average Annual Count, and Trend field information for US States for the average 5 year span from 2012 to 2016.Data is segmented by sex and age, with fields describing the sex and age group tabulated.For more information, visit statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov Data NotationsState Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.† Incidence rates (cases per 100,000 population per year) are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population seer.cancer.gov/stdpopulations/stdpop.19ages.html. Rates are for invasive cancer only (except for bladder cancer which is invasive and in situ) or unless otherwise specified. Rates calculated using SEER*Stat. [seer.cancer.gov/seerstat]Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified [seer.cancer.gov/popdata] by NCI. The 1969-2016 US Population Data File [seer.cancer.gov/popdata] is used for SEER and NPCR incidence rates.‡ Incidence data come from different sources. Due to different years of data availability, most of the trends are AAPCs based on APCs but some are APCs calculated in SEER*Stat. Please refer to the source for each area for additional information. Rates and trends are computed using different standards for malignancy. For more information see malignant.html.^ All Stages refers to any stage in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) summary stage [seer.cancer.gov/tools/ssm].Healthy People 2020 Objectives [www.healthypeople.gov]provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [www.cdc.gov]. Michigan Data do not include cases diagnosed in other states for those states in which the data exchange agreement specifically prohibits the release of data to third parties.Trend Data not available for Nevada.Data Source Field Key:(1) Source: CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR-CSS) November 2018 data submission and SEER November 2018 submission as published in United States Cancer Statistics nccd.cdc.gov/uscs Source: State Cancer Registry and the CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR-CSS) November 2018 data submission. State rates include rates from metropolitan areas funded by SEER [seer.cancer.gov/registries].(6) Source: State Cancer Registry and the CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR-CSS) November 2018 data submission.(7) Source: SEER November 2018 submission.8 Source: Incidence data provided by the SEER Program. [seer.cancer.gov] AAPCs are calculated by the Joinpoint Regression Program [surveillance.cancer.gov/joinpoint] and are based on APCs. Data are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population www.seer.cancer.gov/stdpopulations/single_age.html. Rates are for invasive cancer only (except for bladder cancer which is invasive and in situ) or unless otherwise specified. Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI. The 1969-2017 US Population Data [seer.cancer.gov/popdata] File is used with SEER November 2018 data. Please note that the data comes from different sources. Due to different years [statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/historicaltrend/differences.html] of data availability, most of the trends are AAPCs based on APCs but some are APCs calculated in SEER*Stat. [seer.cancer.gov/seerstat] Please refer to the source for each graph for additional information. Some data are not available [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/datanotavailable.html] for combinations of geography, cancer site, age, and race/ethnicity.

A measure of the number of adults diagnosed with any type of cancer in a year who are still alive one year after diagnosis. Purpose This indicator attempts to capture the success of the NHS in preventing people from dying once they have been diagnosed with any type of cancer. Current version updated: Feb-17 Next version due: Feb-18

Rapid Cancer Registration Data (RCRD) provides a quick, indicative source of cancer data. It is provided to support the planning and provision of cancer services. The data is based on a rapid processing of cancer registration data sources, in particular on Cancer Outcomes and Services Dataset (COSD) information. In comparison, National Cancer Registration Data (NCRD) relies on additional data sources, enhanced follow-up with trusts and expert processing by cancer registration officers. The Rapid Cancer Registration Data (RCRD) may be useful for service improvement projects including healthcare planning and prioritisation. However, it is poorly suited for epidemiological research due to limitations in the data quality and completeness.

SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of obesity, inactivity and inactivity/obesity-related illnesses. Please read the below information to gain a full understanding of what the data shows and how it should be interpreted.The analysis incorporates data relating to the following:Obesity/inactivity-related illnesses (asthma, cancer, chronic kidney disease, coronary heart disease, depression, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, stroke and transient ischaemic attack)Excess weight in children and obesity in adults (combined)Inactivity in children and adults (combined)The analysis was designed with the intention that this dataset could be used to identify locations where investment could encourage greater levels of activity. In particular, it is hoped the dataset will be used to identify locations where the creation or improvement of accessible green/blue spaces and public engagement programmes could encourage greater levels of outdoor activity within the target population, and reduce the health issues associated with obesity and inactivity.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY1. Obesity/inactivity-related illnessesThe analysis was carried out using Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data, derived from NHS Digital, relating to:- Asthma (in persons of all ages)- Cancer (in persons of all ages)- Chronic kidney disease (in adults aged 18+)- Coronary heart disease (in persons of all ages)- Depression (in adults aged 18+)- Diabetes mellitus (in persons aged 17+)- Hypertension (in persons of all ages)- Stroke and transient ischaemic attack (in persons of all ages)This information was recorded at the GP practice level. However, GP catchment areas are not mutually exclusive: they overlap, with some areas covered by 30+ GP practices. Therefore, to increase the clarity and usability of the data, the GP-level statistics were converted into statistics based on Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) census boundaries.For each of the above illnesses, the percentage of each MSOA’s population with that illness was estimated. This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment areaOf the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of patients registered with each GP that have that illness The estimated percentage of each MSOA’s population with each illness was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of people in each MSOA with each illness, within the relevant age range.For each illness, each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have that illnessB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have that illnessAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA predicted to have that illness, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where a large number of people are predicted to suffer from an illness, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with that illness within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.The scores for each of the 8 illnesses were added together then converted to a relative score between 1 – 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best), to give an overall score for each MSOA: a score close to 1 would indicate that an area has high predicted levels of all obesity/inactivity-related illnesses, and these are areas where the local population could benefit the most from interventions to address those illnesses. A score close to 0 would indicate very low predicted levels of obesity/inactivity-related illnesses and therefore interventions might not be required.2. Excess weight in children and obesity in adults (combined)For each MSOA, the number and percentage of children in Reception and Year 6 with excess weight was combined with population data (up to age 17) to estimate the total number of children with excess weight.The first part of the analysis detailed in section 1 was used to estimate the number of adults with obesity in each MSOA, based on GP-level statistics.The percentage of each MSOA’s adult population (aged 18+) with obesity was estimated, using GP-level data (see section 1 above). This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment areaOf the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of adult patients registered with each GP that are obeseThe estimated percentage of each MSOA’s adult population with obesity was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of adults in each MSOA with obesity.The estimated number of children with excess weight and adults with obesity were combined with population data, to give the total number and percentage of the population with excess weight.Each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have excess weight/obesityB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have excess weight/obesityAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA predicted to have excess weight/obesity, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where a large number of people are predicted to suffer from excess weight/obesity, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with that excess weight/obesity within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.3. Inactivity in children and adultsFor each administrative district, the number of children and adults who are inactive was combined with population data to estimate the total number and percentage of the population that are inactive.Each district was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that district who are estimated to be inactiveB) the NUMBER of people within that district who are estimated to be inactiveAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the district predicted to be inactive, compared to other districts. In other words, those are areas where a large number of people are predicted to be inactive, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with that inactivity within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.Summary datasetAn average of the scores calculated in sections 1-3 was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer the score to 1, the greater the number and percentage of people suffering from obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses. I.e. these are areas where there are a large number of people (both children and adults) who are obese, inactive and suffer from obesity/inactivity-related illnesses, and where those people make up a large percentage of the local population. These are the locations where interventions could have the greatest health and wellbeing benefits for the local population.LIMITATIONS1. For data recorded at the GP practice level, data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. Note also that some GPs (997 out of 7670) did not submit data in either year. This dataset should be viewed in conjunction with the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England). Areas with data missing’ dataset, to determine areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year, or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution. Note also that there are some rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).2. Although all of the obesity/inactivity-related illnesses listed can be caused or exacerbated by inactivity and obesity, it was not possible to distinguish from the data the cause of the illnesses in patients: obesity and inactivity are highly unlikely to be the cause of all cases of each illness. By combining the data with data relating to levels of obesity and inactivity in adults and children, we can identify where obesity/inactivity could be a contributing factor, and where interventions to reduce obesity and increase activity could be most beneficial for the health of the local population.3. It was not feasible to incorporate ultra-fine-scale geographic distribution of

Describe real-world epidemiology, treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, and costs of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) in France. Retrospective study including all adults with la/mUC diagnosis during January 2017 to December 2020 in the PMSI database. Annual prevalence and incidence ranged from 36.4 to 38.9 and 16.4 to 18.5 cases per 100,000 people, respectively. Of the 25,314 patients with incident la/mUC, 37.6% did not receive first-line systemic treatment. Of the 14,656 patients who started first-line systemic treatment, 66.6%, 22.5%, and 10.9% received 1, 2, and 3 lines of therapy, respectively. Annual per-patient costs in second-/third-line setting ranged from €8803 to €16,012. The substantial disease burden of la/mUC in France highlights the unmet need for new therapies. What is this article about? Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is a type of cancer affecting the urinary system. It can spread to other parts of the body, described as locally advanced or metastatic (la/m). We used information from a French database recording hospitalizations in France to find out how many people have la/mUC, how many new cases develop each year, what treatments they receive, how many die in the hospital, and how much their care costs. What were the results? Based on database information, 37 to 39 of every 100,000 people have la/mUC and 17 to 19 of every 100,000 people are identified with a new case yearly. Slightly more than one-third of patients with la/mUC did not receive recommended treatment (chemotherapy) when first diagnosed. Chemotherapy was the most common treatment type for the first, second, or third treatment; checkpoint inhibitors (a unique treatment) became more commonly used as a second treatment over time. Yearly in-hospital death rates were high, ranging from 47.8% of patients who died within 1 year from diagnosis to 62.9% dying within 3 years. Yearly cost of care was high (costing €8803 to €16,012) in patients starting a second or third treatment. What do the results of the study mean? The study shows many patients may not be fit enough or choose not to receive treatment. Even those receiving treatment are at high risk for poor outcomes. The burden of la/mUC in France is high, underscoring the need for more therapies and better supportive care early in disease management.