Users can access data about cancer statistics in the United States including but not limited to searches by type of cancer and race, sex, ethnicity, age at diagnosis, and age at death. Background Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database’s mission is to provide information on cancer statistics to help reduce the burden of disease in the U.S. population. The SEER database is a project to the National Cancer Institute. The SEER database collects information on incidence, prevalence, and survival from specific geographic areas representing 28 percent of the United States population. User functionality Users can access a variety of reso urces. Cancer Stat Fact Sheets allow users to look at summaries of statistics by major cancer type. Cancer Statistic Reviews are available from 1975-2008 in table format. Users are also able to build their own tables and graphs using Fast Stats. The Cancer Query system provides more flexibility and a larger set of cancer statistics than F ast Stats but requires more input from the user. State Cancer Profiles include dynamic maps and graphs enabling the investigation of cancer trends at the county, state, and national levels. SEER research data files and SEER*Stat software are available to download through your Internet connection (SEER*Stat’s client-server mode) or via discs shipped directly to you. A signed data agreement form is required to access the SEER data Data Notes Data is available in different formats depending on which type of data is accessed. Some data is available in table, PDF, and html formats. Detailed information about the data is available under “Data Documentation and Variable Recodes”.

This dataset contains Cancer Incidence data for Breast Cancer (Late Stage^) including: Age-Adjusted Rate, Confidence Interval, Average Annual Count, and Trend field information for US States for the average 5 year span from 2016 to 2020.Data are for females segmented by age (All Ages, Ages Under 50, Ages 50 & Over, Ages Under 65, and Ages 65 & Over), with field names and aliases describing the sex and age group tabulated.For more information, visit statecancerprofiles.cancer.govData NotationsState Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.TrendRising when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is above 0.Stable when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change includes 0.Falling when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is below 0.† Incidence rates (cases per 100,000 population per year) are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85+). 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. Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI. The US Population Data File is used for SEER and NPCR incidence rates.‡ Incidence Trend 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.^ Late Stage is defined as cases determined to be regional or distant. Due to changes in stage coding, Combined Summary Stage (2004+) is used for data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) databases and Merged Summary Stage is used for data from National Program of Cancer Registries databases. Due to the increased complexity with staging, other staging variables maybe used if necessary.Data Source Field Key(1) Source: National Program of Cancer Registries and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2022 submission.(5) Source: National Program of Cancer Registries and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2022 submission.(6) Source: National Program of Cancer Registries SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (based on the 2022 submission).(7) Source: SEER November 2022 submission.(8) Source: Incidence data provided by the SEER Program. AAPCs are calculated by the Joinpoint Regression Program and are based on APCs. Data are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84,85+). 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 US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2022 data.Some data are not available, see Data Not Available for combinations of geography, cancer site, age, and race/ethnicity.Data for the United States does not include data from Nevada.Data for the United States does not include Puerto Rico.

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.

This dataset contains Cancer Incidence data for Breast Cancer (All Stages^) including: Age-Adjusted Rate, Confidence Interval, Average Annual Count, and Trend field information for US States for the average 5 year span from 2016 to 2020.Data are for females segmented by age (All Ages, Ages Under 50, Ages 50 & Over, Ages Under 65, and Ages 65 & Over), with field names and aliases describing the sex and age group tabulated.For more information, visit statecancerprofiles.cancer.govData NotationsState Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.TrendRising when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is above 0.Stable when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change includes 0.Falling when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is below 0.† Incidence rates (cases per 100,000 population per year) are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85+). 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. Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI. The US Population Data File is used for SEER and NPCR incidence rates.‡ Incidence Trend 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.^ All Stages refers to any stage in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) summary stage.Data Source Field Key(1) Source: National Program of Cancer Registries and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2022 submission.(5) Source: National Program of Cancer Registries and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2022 submission.(6) Source: National Program of Cancer Registries SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (based on the 2022 submission).(7) Source: SEER November 2022 submission.(8) Source: Incidence data provided by the SEER Program. AAPCs are calculated by the Joinpoint Regression Program and are based on APCs. Data are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84,85+). 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 US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2022 data.Some data are not available, see Data Not Available for combinations of geography, cancer site, age, and race/ethnicity.Data for the United States does not include data from Nevada.Data for the United States does not include Puerto Rico.

Some racial and ethnic categories are suppressed for privacy and to avoid misleading estimates when the relative standard error exceeds 30% or the unweighted sample size is less than 50 respondents. Margins of error are estimated at the 90% confidence level.

Data Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey (BRFSS) Data

Why This Matters

Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in the U.S. for men and women. Although colorectal cancer is most common among people aged 65 to 74, there has been an increase in incidences among people aged 40 to 49.

Nationally, Black people are disproportionately likely to both have colorectal cancer and die from it. Hispanic residents, and especially those with limited English proficiency, report having the lowest rate of colorectal cancer screenings.

Racial disparities in education, poverty, health insurance coverage, and English language proficiency are all factors that contribute to racial gaps in receiving colorectal cancer screenings. Increased colorectal cancer screening utilization has been shown to nearly erase the racial disparities in the death rate of colorectal cancer.

The District Response

The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (DC3C) aims to reduce colon cancer incidence and mortality by increasing colorectal cancer screening rates among District residents.

DC Health’s Cancer and Chronic Disease Prevention Bureau works with healthcare providers to improve the use of preventative health services and provide colorectal cancer screening services.

DC Health maintains the District of Columbia Cancer Registry (DCCR) to track cancer incidences, examine environmental substances that cause cancer, and identify differences in cancer incidences by age, gender, race, and geographical location.

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 Cancer Incidence data for Prostate Cancer(All Stages^) including: Age-Adjusted Rate, Confidence Interval, Average Annual Count, and Trend field information for US States for the average 5 year span from 2016 to 2020.Data are for males segmented age (All Ages, Ages Under 50, Ages 50 & Over, Ages Under 65, and Ages 65 & Over), with field names and aliases describing the sex and age group tabulated.For more information, visit statecancerprofiles.cancer.govData NotationsState Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.TrendRising when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is above 0.Stable when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change includes 0.Falling when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is below 0.† Incidence rates (cases per 100,000 population per year) are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85+). 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. Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI. The US Population Data File is used for SEER and NPCR incidence rates.‡ Incidence Trend 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.^ All Stages refers to any stage in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) summary stage.Data Source Field Key(1) Source: National Program of Cancer Registries and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2022 submission.(5) Source: National Program of Cancer Registries and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2022 submission.(6) Source: National Program of Cancer Registries SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (based on the 2022 submission).(7) Source: SEER November 2022 submission.(8) Source: Incidence data provided by the SEER Program. AAPCs are calculated by the Joinpoint Regression Program and are based on APCs. Data are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84,85+). 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 US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2022 data.Some data are not available, see Data Not Available for combinations of geography, cancer site, age, and race/ethnicity.Data for the United States does not include data from Nevada.Data for the United States does not include Puerto Rico.

India IN: Mortality from CVD, Cancer, Diabetes or CRD between Exact Ages 30 and 70: Female data was reported at 19.800 NA in 2016. This records a decrease from the previous number of 20.000 NA for 2015. India IN: Mortality from CVD, Cancer, Diabetes or CRD between Exact Ages 30 and 70: Female data is updated yearly, averaging 21.200 NA from Dec 2000 (Median) to 2016, with 5 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 23.400 NA in 2000 and a record low of 19.800 NA in 2016. India IN: Mortality from CVD, Cancer, Diabetes or CRD between Exact Ages 30 and 70: Female data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s India – Table IN.World Bank.WDI: Health Statistics. Mortality from CVD, cancer, diabetes or CRD is the percent of 30-year-old-people who would die before their 70th birthday from any of cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, or chronic respiratory disease, assuming that s/he would experience current mortality rates at every age and s/he would not die from any other cause of death (e.g., injuries or HIV/AIDS).; ; World Health Organization, Global Health Observatory Data Repository (http://apps.who.int/ghodata/).; Weighted average;

This dataset contains Cancer Incidence data for Lung Cancer (All Stages^) including: Age-Adjusted Rate, Confidence Interval, Average Annual Count, and Trend field information for US States for the average 5 year span from 2016 to 2020.Data are segmented by sex (Both Sexes, Male, and Female) and age (All Ages, Ages Under 50, Ages 50 & Over, Ages Under 65, and Ages 65 & Over), with field names and aliases describing the sex and age group tabulated.For more information, visit statecancerprofiles.cancer.govData NotationsState Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.TrendRising when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is above 0.Stable when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change includes 0.Falling when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is below 0.† Incidence rates (cases per 100,000 population per year) are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85+). 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. Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI. The US Population Data File is used for SEER and NPCR incidence rates.‡ Incidence Trend 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.^ All Stages refers to any stage in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) summary stage.Data Source Field Key(1) Source: National Program of Cancer Registries and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2022 submission.(5) Source: National Program of Cancer Registries and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2022 submission.(6) Source: National Program of Cancer Registries SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (based on the 2022 submission).(7) Source: SEER November 2022 submission.(8) Source: Incidence data provided by the SEER Program. AAPCs are calculated by the Joinpoint Regression Program and are based on APCs. Data are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84,85+). 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 US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2022 data.Some data are not available, see Data Not Available for combinations of geography, cancer site, age, and race/ethnicity.Data for the United States does not include data from Nevada.Data for the United States does not include Puerto Rico.

This dataset presents the footprint of participation statistics in the National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) for women aged 20 to 69, by age group. The NCSP began in 1991. It aims to reduce cervical cancer cases, illness and deaths in Australia. The data spans the years of 2014-2016 and is aggregated to 2015 Department of Health Primary Health Network (PHN) areas, based on the 2011 Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS).

Cancer is one of the leading causes of illness and death in Australia. Cancer screening programs aim to reduce the impact of selected cancers by facilitating early detection, intervention and treatment. Australia has three cancer screening programs:

• BreastScreen Australia

• National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP)

• National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP)

The National cancer screening programs participation data presents the latest cancer screening participation rates and trends for Australia's 3 national cancer screening programs. The data has been sourced from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) analysis of National Bowel Cancer Screening Program register data, state and territory BreastScreen Australia register data and state and territory cervical screening register data.

For further information about this dataset, visit the data source:Australian Institute of Health and Welfare - National Cancer Screening Programs Participation Data Tables.

Please note:

• AURIN has spatially enabled the original data using the Department of Health - PHN Areas.

• Participation in the NCSP for this report was defined as the percentage of women in the population aged 20-69 who had at least one Pap test in a 2-year period. Participation rates were calculated using the average of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Estimated Resident Population (ERP) for females aged 20-69 for the relevant 2-year reporting period adjusted for the estimated proportion of women who have had a hysterectomy.

• A PHN was assigned to women using a postcode to PHN correspondence. Because these are based only on postcode, these data will be less accurate than those published by individual states and territories.

• Postcode is used for mailing purposes and may not reflect where a woman resides.

• Some postcodes (and hence women) cannot be attributed to a PHN and therefore these women were excluded from the analysis. This is most noticeable in the Northern Territory but affects all states and territories to some degree.

• Totals may not sum due to rounding.

• The time period of some PHN data presented is prior to the initiation of PHNs, which were in established in June 2015.

• Some duplication may occur where the same test is reported to the cervical screening register in two or more jurisdictions. This may lead to erroneous results when focusing on smaller geographical areas. This may affect border areas more than others.

• Data are preliminary and subject to change.

• The 2014-2015 period covers 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2015, and the 2015-2016 period covers 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2016.

• PHN205 Murray includes Albury, NSW.

The proportion of women eligible for screening who have had a test with a recorded result at least once in the previous 36 months.RationaleBreast screening supports early detection of cancer and is estimated to save 1,400 lives in England each year. This indicator provides an opportunity to incentivise screening promotion and other local initiatives to increase coverage of breast screening.Improvements in coverage would mean more breast cancers are detected at earlier, more treatable stages.Breast screening supports early detection of cancer and is estimated to save 1,400 lives in England each year. This indicator provides an opportunity to incentivise screening promotion and other local initiatives to increase coverage of breast screening.Improvements in coverage would mean more breast cancers are detected at earlier, more treatable stages.Definition of numeratorTested women (numerator) is the number of eligible women aged 53 to 70 registered with a GP with a screening test result recorded in the past 36 months.Definition of denominatorEligible women (denominator) is the number of women aged 53 to 70 years resident in the area (determined by postcode of residence) who are eligible for breast screening at a given point in time, excluding those whose recall has been ceased for clinical reasons (for example, due to previous bilateral mastectomy).CaveatsData for ICBs are estimated from local authority data. In most cases ICBs are coterminous with local authorities, so the ICB figures are precise. In cases where local authorities cross ICB boundaries, the local authority data are proportionally split between ICBs, based on population located in each ICB.The affected ICBs are:Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire;Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes;Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West;Cambridgeshire and Peterborough;Frimley;Hampshire and Isle of Wight;Hertfordshire and West Essex;Humber and North Yorkshire;Lancashire and South Cumbria;Norfolk and Waveney;North East and North Cumbria;Suffolk and North East Essex;Surrey Heartlands;Sussex;West Yorkshire.Please be aware that the April 2019 to March 2020, April 2020 to March 2021 and April 2021 to March 2022 data covers the time period affected by the COVID19 pandemic and therefore data for this period should be interpreted with caution.This indicator gives screening coverage by local authority . This is not the same as the indicator based on population registered with primary care organisations which include patients wherever they live. This is likely to result in different England totals depending on selected (registered or resident) population footprint.The indicator excludes women outside the target age range for the screening programme who may self refer for screening.Standards say "Women who are ineligible for screening due to having had a bilateral mastectomy, women who are ceased from the programme based on a ‘best interests’ decision under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 or women who make an informed choice to remove themselves from the screening programme will be removed from the numerator and denominator.There are a number of categories of women in the eligible age range who are not registered with a GP and subsequently not called for screening as they are not on the Breast Screening Select (BS Select) database. Screening units have a responsibility to maximise coverage of eligible women in their target population and should therefore be accessible to women in this category through self referral and GP referral ."This indicator gives screening coverage by local authority . This is not the same as the indicator based on population registered with primary care organisations which include patients wherever they live. This is likely to result in different England totals depending on selected (registered or resident) population footprint.

computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI); mail questionnaireThe data available for download are not weighted and users will need to weight the data prior to analysis. Users who plan to do inferential statistical testing using the data should utilize a statistical program that can incorporate the replicate weights included in the dataset. Additional information about sampling, interviewing, sampling error, weighting, and the universe of each question may be found in the codebook.This data collection utilized a split frame where approximately half of the sample completed the survey by telephone through random digit dial (RDD) and half completed it through the mail as a paper and pencil questionnaire. Users can analyse the data with only the RDD respondents, only the mail respondents, or both, as indicated by the variable SAMPFLAG. For each type of analysis, users will need to supply the proper final weight to get population estimates and replicate weights to calculate the correct variance.Variable names containing more than 16 characters were truncated in order to be compatible with current statistical programs. Therefore, variable names may differ slightly from those in the original documentation.The formats of the weight and replicate weight variables were adjusted to fit the width of the values present in these variables, and the variables REGION and DIVISION were converted from character to numeric.To protect respondent confidentiality, open-ended responses containing information on respondent's occupation in variables HC03WHERESEE2_OS and HD05OCCUPATIO_OS were blanked.ICPSR created a unique sequential record identifier variable named CASEID. The Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) collects nationally representative data about the American public's access to and use of cancer-related information. The 2007 HINTS survey is the third in an ongoing biannual series and provides information on the changing patterns, needs, and behavior in seeking and supplying cancer information and explores how cancer risks are perceived. Respondents were asked about the ways in which they obtained health information, their use of health care services, their views about medical information and research, and their beliefs about cancer. A series of questions specifically addressed cervical cancer, colon cancer, and the Human Papillomavirus (HPV). Information was also collected on physical and mental health status, diet, physical activity, sun exposure, history of cancer, tobacco use, and whether respondents had health insurance. Demographic variables include sex, age, race, education level, employment status, marital status, household income, number of people living in the household, ownership of residence, and whether respondents were born in the United States. For the CATI data collection, the sample design was a list-assisted RDD sample and one adult in the household was sampled for the extended interview using an algorithm designed to minimize intrusiveness. The mail survey included a stratified sample selected from a list of addresses that oversampled for minorities. Sampled addresses were matched to a database of listed telephone numbers, with 50 percent of the cases successfully matched to a telephone number. Matches in which a telephone number was both appended to an address-sample address and included in the RDD sample were deleted from the address sample. Please refer to the codebook documentation for more information on sample design. Every sampled adult who completed a questionnaire in HINTS 2007 received three full-sample weights and three sets of replicate-sample weights. Two of the three types of weights correspond to the type of samples - the address-sample weight (MWGT0) and the RDD sample weight (RWGT0). The address-sample weight is missing for a case in the RDD sample and vice versa. The sample-specific weights are used to calculate estimates based on data from one of the two samples. The third type of weight is a composite weight (CWGT0) which is used to calculate estimates based on the data from both samples. Please refer to the codebook documentation for more information on weighting. Response Rates: The overall response rate for the RDD sample was 24.23 percent, while the overall response rate for the address-sample was 30.99 percent. Please refer to the codebook documentation for more information on response rates. The civilian, noninstitutionalized population of the United States aged 18 years and older. Datasets: DS1: Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS), 2007

Nigeria NG: Mortality from CVD, Cancer, Diabetes or CRD between Exact Ages 30 and 70: Male data was reported at 20.900 NA in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 20.800 NA for 2015. Nigeria NG: Mortality from CVD, Cancer, Diabetes or CRD between Exact Ages 30 and 70: Male data is updated yearly, averaging 21.000 NA from Dec 2000 (Median) to 2016, with 5 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 22.600 NA in 2000 and a record low of 20.800 NA in 2015. Nigeria NG: Mortality from CVD, Cancer, Diabetes or CRD between Exact Ages 30 and 70: Male data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Nigeria – Table NG.World Bank.WDI: Health Statistics. Mortality from CVD, cancer, diabetes or CRD is the percent of 30-year-old-people who would die before their 70th birthday from any of cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, or chronic respiratory disease, assuming that s/he would experience current mortality rates at every age and s/he would not die from any other cause of death (e.g., injuries or HIV/AIDS).; ; World Health Organization, Global Health Observatory Data Repository (http://apps.who.int/ghodata/).; Weighted average;

This dataset contains Cancer Incidence data for Colorectal Cancer (All Stages^) including: Age-Adjusted Rate, Confidence Interval, Average Annual Count, and Trend field information for US States for the average 5 year span from 2016 to 2020.Data are segmented by sex (Both Sexes, Male, and Female) and age (All Ages, Ages Under 50, Ages 50 & Over, Ages Under 65, and Ages 65 & Over), with field names and aliases describing the sex and age group tabulated.For more information, visit statecancerprofiles.cancer.govData NotationsState Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.TrendRising when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is above 0.Stable when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change includes 0.Falling when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is below 0.† Incidence rates (cases per 100,000 population per year) are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85+). 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. Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI. The US Population Data File is used for SEER and NPCR incidence rates.‡ Incidence Trend 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.^ All Stages refers to any stage in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) summary stage.Data Source Field Key(1) Source: National Program of Cancer Registries and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2022 submission.(5) Source: National Program of Cancer Registries and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2022 submission.(6) Source: National Program of Cancer Registries SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (based on the 2022 submission).(7) Source: SEER November 2022 submission.(8) Source: Incidence data provided by the SEER Program. AAPCs are calculated by the Joinpoint Regression Program and are based on APCs. Data are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84,85+). 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 US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2022 data.Some data are not available, see Data Not Available for combinations of geography, cancer site, age, and race/ethnicity.Data for the United States does not include data from Nevada.Data for the United States does not include Puerto Rico.

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

Rank, number of deaths, percentage of deaths, and age-specific mortality rates for the leading causes of death, by age group and sex, 2000 to most recent year.

This dataset presents the footprint of participation statistics in BreastScreen Australia for women ages 50 to 74, by age group. The national breast cancer screening program, BreastScreen Australia …Show full descriptionThis dataset presents the footprint of participation statistics in BreastScreen Australia for women ages 50 to 74, by age group. The national breast cancer screening program, BreastScreen Australia began in 1991. It aims to reduce illness and death from breast cancer using screening mammography for early detection of unsuspected breast cancer in women. The data spans the years of 2014-2016 and is aggregated to Statistical Area Level 3 (SA3) geographic boundaries from the 2011 Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS). Cancer is one of the leading causes of illness and death in Australia. Cancer screening programs aim to reduce the impact of selected cancers by facilitating early detection, intervention and treatment. Australia has three cancer screening programs: BreastScreen Australia National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) The National cancer screening programs participation data presents the latest cancer screening participation rates and trends for Australia's 3 national cancer screening programs. The data has been sourced from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) analysis of National Bowel Cancer Screening Program register data, state and territory BreastScreen Australia register data and state and territory cervical screening register data. For further information about this dataset, visit the data source: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare - National Cancer Screening Programs Participation Data Tables. Please note: AURIN has spatially enabled the original data. Participation rates represent the percentage of women in the population aged 50-74 screened by BreastScreen Australia over 2 calendar years. The population denominator was the average of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Estimated Resident Population (ERP) for females aged 50-74 within the relevant geographical area for the relevant 2-year reporting period. An SA3 was assigned to women using a postcode to SA3 correspondence. Because these are based only on postcode, these data will be less accurate than those published by individual states and territories. Some postcodes (and hence women) cannot be attributed to an SA3 and therefore these women were excluded from the analysis. This is most noticeable in the Northern Territory but affects all states and territories to some degree. SA3s with a numerator less than 20 or a denominator less than 100 have been suppressed. SA3 data for the Blue Mountains - South, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Cotter - Namadgi, Fyshwick - Piallago - Hume, Illawarra Catchment Reserve, Jervis Bay, and Lord Howe Island were excluded due to reliability concerns from low numbers in these regions. Totals may not sum due to rounding. BreastScreen Australia changed its target age group from 50-69 years to 50-74 years from July 2013; participation is reported for both the previous and current target age groups to allow comparison of trends with previously reported data. Data are preliminary and subject to change. The 2014-2015 period covers 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2015, and the the 2015-2016 period covers 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2016. Copyright attribution: Government of the Commonwealth of Australia - Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, (2019): ; accessed from AURIN on 12/3/2020. Licence type: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC BY 3.0 AU)

This data shows the percentage of adults (age 18 and over) who are current smokers. Smoking is the single biggest cause of preventable death and illnesses, and big inequalities exist between and within communities. Smoking is a major risk factor for many diseases, such as lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, bronchitis and emphysema) and heart disease. It is also associated with cancers in other organs. Smoking is a modifiable lifestyle risk factor. Preventing people from starting smoking is important in reducing the health harms and inequalities. This data is based on the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Annual Population Survey (APS). The percentage of adults is not age-standardised. In this dataset particularly at district level there may be inherent statistical uncertainty in some data values. Thus as with many other datasets, this data should be used together with other data and resources to obtain a fuller picture. Data source: Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) Public Health Outcomes Framework (PHOF) indicator 92443 (Number 15). This data is updated annually.

Objective: To develop and validate a nomogram that identifies men for whom bone scan is unnecessary. Material and methods: The study datasets were derived from the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden. All men in the NPCR ≤80 years of age who were diagnosed with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer and who had pretreatment bone imaging (99mTc MDP scintigraphy, plain x-ray, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and/or positron emission tomography fused with computed tomography) were included. Men diagnosed from 2015–2016 formed a development dataset and men diagnosed in 2017 formed a validation dataset. Outcome was metastasis on bone imaging as registered in NPCR. Multivariable logistic regression was used to develop a nomogram. Results: In the development dataset 482/5084 men (10%) had bone metastasis, the corresponding percentage in the validation dataset was 282/2554 (11%). Gleason grade group, clinical T stage, and prostate-specific antigen were included in the final model. Discrimination and calibration were satisfactory in both the development (AUC 0.80, 95% CI 0.78–0.82) and validation dataset (AUC 0.80, 95% CI, 0.77–0.82). Compared with using the EAU guidelines’ recommendation for selecting men for imaging, using the nomogram with a cut-off at 4% chance of bone metastasis, would have avoided imaging in 519/2068 men (25%) and miss bone metastasis in 10/519 (2%) men in the validation dataset. Conclusion: By use of our nomogram, bone scans of men with prostate cancer can be avoided in a large proportion of men.

BackgroundCervical cancer incidence and mortality rates in the United States have substantially declined over recent decades, primarily driven by reductions in squamous cell carcinoma cases. However, the trend in recent years remains unclear. This study aimed to explore the trends in cervical cancer incidence and mortality, stratified by demographic and tumor characteristics from 1975 to 2018.MethodsThe age-adjusted incidence, incidence-based mortality, and relative survival of cervical cancer were calculated using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-9 database. Trend analyses with annual percent change (APC) and average annual percent change (AAPC) calculations were performed using Joinpoint Regression Software (Version 4.9.1.0, National Cancer Institute).ResultsDuring 1975–2018, 49,658 cervical cancer cases were diagnosed, with 17,099 recorded deaths occurring between 1995 and 2018. Squamous cell carcinoma was the most common histological type, with 34,169 cases and 11,859 deaths. Over the study period, the cervical cancer incidence rate decreased by an average of 1.9% (95% CI: −2.3% to −1.6%) per year, with the APCs decreased in recent years (−0.5% [95% CI: −1.1 to 0.1%] in 2006–2018). Squamous cell carcinoma incidence trends closely paralleled overall cervical cancer patterns, but the incidence of squamous cell carcinoma in the distant stage increased significantly (1.1% [95% CI: 0.4 to 1.8%] in 1990–2018). From 1995 to 2018, the overall cervical cancer mortality rate decreased by 1.0% (95% CI: −1.2% to −0.8%) per year. But for distant-stage squamous cell carcinoma, the mortality rate increased by 1.2% (95% CI: 0.3 to 2.1%) per year.ConclusionFor cervical cancer cases diagnosed in the United States from 1975 to 2018, the overall incidence and mortality rates decreased significantly. However, there was an increase in the incidence and mortality of advanced-stage squamous cell carcinoma. These epidemiological patterns offer critical insights for refining cervical cancer screening protocols and developing targeted interventions for advanced-stage cases.