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

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.

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.

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 | |:-------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------...

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.

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).

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.

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+)

Abstract Objective: To identify the socioepidemiologic and histopathologic patterns of lung cancer patients in the Middle Euphrates region. Patients and Methods: This study analyzed medical information from lung cancer patients at the Middle Euphrates Cancer Center in Iraq from January 2018 to December 2023. Demographic information (age, gender, residency, and education level) as well as clinical details (histopathological categorization) were obtained. The inclusion criteria included all confirmed lung cancer cases, while cases with inadequate data or non-lung cancer diagnosis were omitted. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 26). The data summarized using descriptive statistics, and chi-square tests used to identify correlations between categorical variables at a significance level of p < 0.05. Ethical approval was obtained from the relevant institutional review board. Results: A total of 1162 patients were included with mean age at diagnosis(64.47±11.45) years. Majority of patients are over 60 years (64.4%), followed by (40–60 years), 34%, and the least affected group is under 40 years (1.6%). Males account for the majority of cases (68%), while females about 32%, with male:female ratio that fluctuate around 2:1. Illiterate patients and those with low education levels represent the largest proportion accounting for about 87.9% of the study population. Squamous Cell Carcinoma (SCC) is the most frequent subtype (41.7%), followed closely by Adenocarcinoma (AC) at 37%, and Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC), 10.5%. Although SCC is the predominant subtype overall, AC incidence is increasing overtime (from 31.7% in 2018 to 41.4% in 2023) with predominance in females, younger and higher educated groups. While the percentage of SCLC and other less common subgroups remained relatively stable over time, there is a significant reduction in NSCLC-NOS diagnoses (from 11.1% in 2018 to 3.2% in 2023). Conclusions: In Iraq, specifically in the Middle Euphrates region, lung cancer is a major public health issue in the elder age groups. The two main subtypes, SCC and AC, are the main contributors, with obvious increment in AC cases in the recent years. The shifting trends indicate the urgent need for improved screening strategies, focused preventative initiatives, and customized treatment plans in view of changing risk profiles.

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.

The interannual variability of SMR for a given administrative unit might be large under small populations. Indeed, being the SMR a rate standardized over the population size, the expected mortality (i.e., Em) in small populations will result low (say 10-2) and in turn, according to eq. (1), even a few deaths (say 1 or 2) in a year could yield a relatively high SMR as shown in Figure 3. For this reason, we recommend avoiding using single-year estimates and using the average SMR and/or lower 90% or 95% confidence intervals.

This dataset provides insights into one-year survival rates from all cancers, serving as a key indicator of early cancer outcomes. It measures the proportion of individuals diagnosed with an invasive cancer who survive for at least one year following their diagnosis. The dataset includes all invasive tumours classified under ICD-10 codes C00 to C97, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (C44). It supports analysis across different population groups and geographies, including ethnicity, deprivation levels, and the Birmingham and Solihull (BSol) area.

Rationale

Improving one-year survival rates is a critical goal in cancer care, as it reflects the effectiveness of early diagnosis and initial treatment. This indicator helps monitor progress in reducing early mortality from cancer and supports targeted interventions to improve outcomes.

Numerator

The numerator includes individuals who were diagnosed with a specific type of cancer and died from the same type of cancer within one year of diagnosis. Only invasive cancers are included, as defined by ICD-10 codes C00 to C97, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (C44). Data is sourced from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS).

Denominator

The denominator comprises all individuals diagnosed with an invasive cancer (ICD-10 codes C00 to C97, excluding C44) within a five-year period. This data is also sourced from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS).

Caveats

This dataset uses a simplified methodology that differs from the national calculation of one-year cancer survival. As a result, the figures presented here may not align with nationally published statistics. However, this approach enables the provision of survival data disaggregated by ethnicity, deprivation, and local geographies such as BSol, which is not always possible with national data.

External references

For more information, visit the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS).

Click here to explore more from the Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Partnerships Outcome Framework.

This dataset is sourced from Public Health England and consists of the percentage of people in the resident population eligible for cervical screening who were screened adequately within the previous years (2010 to 2016) for bowel, cervical and breast cancer.

Proportion of patients examined within a standardized course of care out of the total number of people who are expected to receive a cancer diagnosis during the year. The calculation is based on data from the National Board of Health and Welfare. Standardized course of care (SVF) is a national approach that aims to reduce unnecessary waiting and uncertainty for the patient. All SVFs start with a well-founded suspicion of cancer. What is a well-founded suspicion, how it should be investigated and how long this may take, is stated in the national care program for each cancer diagnosis. The time from well-founded suspicion to the start of treatment is measured in the same way throughout the country. An SVF describes the investigations to be carried out in the event of suspicion of a particular cancer disease, as well as the maximum time limits within which the investigations must be completed and the first treatment must be started. The denominator consists of the total number of people who are expected to receive a cancer diagnosis during the year. The calculation is based on the number of cancer cases in the last three years with data from the Cancer Registry at the National Board of Health and Welfare.

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

This dataset presents information on five-year survival rates from all cancers, focusing on individuals diagnosed with invasive cancers (ICD-10 codes C00 to C97, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer C44). It provides a simplified local methodology for calculating survival outcomes, enabling analysis by ethnicity, deprivation, and within the Birmingham and Solihull (BSol) geography. While it does not replicate the national calculation, it offers valuable insights into cancer survival trends at a more granular level.

Rationale

The primary aim of this indicator is to increase five-year survival rates from all cancers. Monitoring survival over a five-year period provides a meaningful measure of cancer outcomes and the effectiveness of early diagnosis and treatment interventions.

Numerator

The numerator includes individuals who were diagnosed with a specific type of cancer and subsequently died from the same type of cancer within five years of diagnosis. Only invasive cancers (ICD-10 codes C00 to C97, excluding C44) are included.

Denominator

The denominator comprises all individuals diagnosed with an invasive cancer (ICD-10 codes C00 to C97, excluding C44) within a five-year period.

Caveats

This dataset uses a simplified methodology that does not replicate the national calculation. As a result, the values reported here may differ from nationally published figures. However, this approach allows for the inclusion of breakdowns by ethnicity, deprivation, and local geography (BSol), which are not always available in national statistics.

External References

For more information, refer to the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS).

Localities ExplainedThis dataset contains data based on either the resident locality or registered locality of the patient, a distinction is made between resident locality and registered locality populations:Resident Locality refers to individuals who live within the defined geographic boundaries of the locality. These boundaries are aligned with official administrative areas such as wards and Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs).Registered Locality refers to individuals who are registered with GP practices that are assigned to a locality based on the Primary Care Network (PCN) they belong to. These assignments are approximate—PCNs are mapped to a locality based on the location of most of their GP surgeries. As a result, locality-registered patients may live outside the locality, sometimes even in different towns or cities.This distinction is important because some health indicators are only available at GP practice level, without information on where patients actually reside. In such cases, data is attributed to the locality based on GP registration, not residential address.

Click here to explore more from the Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Partnerships Outcome Framework.

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.

BackgroundArea-level indices are widely used to assess the impact of socio-environmental characteristics on cancer outcomes. While area-level measures of socioeconomic status (SES) have been previously used in cancer settings, fewer studies have focused on evaluating the impact of area-level health services supply (HSS) characteristics on cancer outcomes. Moreover, there is significant variation in the methods and constructs used to create area-level indices.MethodsIn this study, we introduced a psychometrically-induced, reproducible approach to develop area-level HSS and SES indices. We assessed the utility of these indices in detecting the effects of area-level characteristics on prostate, breast, and lung cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis in the US. The information on county-level SES and HSS characteristics were extracted from US Census, County Business Patterns data and Area Health Resource Files. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was used to identify individuals diagnosed with cancer from 2010 to 2012. SES and HSS indices were developed and linked to 3-year age-adjusted cancer incidence rates. SES and HSS indices empirically summarized the level of employment, education, poverty and income, and the availability of health care facilities and health professionals within counties.ResultsSES and HSS models demonstrated good fit (TLI = 0.98 and 0.96, respectively) and internal consistency (alpha = 0.85 and 0.95, respectively). Increasing SES and HSS were associated with increasing prostate and breast cancer and decreasing lung cancer incidence rates. The results varied by stage at diagnosis and race.ConclusionComposite county-level measures of SES and HSS were effective in ranking counties and detecting gradients in cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis. Thus, these measures provide valuable tools for monitoring geographic disparities in cancer outcomes.

This dataset provides valuable insights into lung cancer cases, risk factors, smoking trends, and healthcare access across 25 of the world's most populated countries. It includes 220,632 individuals with details on their age, gender, smoking history, cancer diagnosis, environmental exposure, and survival rates. The dataset is useful for medical research, predictive modeling, and policy-making to understand lung cancer patterns globally.