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

The United States Cancer Statistics (USCS) online databases in WONDER provide cancer incidence and mortality data for the United States for the years since 1999, by year, state and metropolitan areas (MSA), age group, race, ethnicity, sex, childhood cancer classifications and cancer site. Report case counts, deaths, crude and age-adjusted incidence and death rates, and 95% confidence intervals for rates. The USCS data are the official federal statistics on cancer incidence from registries having high-quality data and cancer mortality statistics for 50 states and the District of Columbia. USCS are produced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in collaboration with the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR). Mortality data are provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Vital Statistics System (NVSS).

Exploring County-Level Correlations in Cancer Rates and Trends

A Multivariate Ordinary Least Squares Regression Model

By Noah Rippner [source]

About this dataset

This dataset offers a unique opportunity to examine the pattern and trends of county-level cancer rates in the United States at the individual county level. Using data from cancer.gov and the US Census American Community Survey, this dataset allows us to gain insight into how age-adjusted death rate, average deaths per year, and recent trends vary between counties – along with other key metrics like average annual counts, met objectives of 45.5?, recent trends (2) in death rates, etc., captured within our deep multi-dimensional dataset. We are able to build linear regression models based on our data to determine correlations between variables that can help us better understand cancers prevalence levels across different counties over time - making it easier to target health initiatives and resources accurately when necessary or desired

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

This kaggle dataset provides county-level datasets from the US Census American Community Survey and cancer.gov for exploring correlations between county-level cancer rates, trends, and mortality statistics. This dataset contains records from all U.S counties concerning the age-adjusted death rate, average deaths per year, recent trend (2) in death rates, average annual count of cases detected within 5 years, and whether or not an objective of 45.5 (1) was met in the county associated with each row in the table.

To use this dataset to its fullest potential you need to understand how to perform simple descriptive analytics which includes calculating summary statistics such as mean, median or other numerical values; summarizing categorical variables using frequency tables; creating data visualizations such as charts and histograms; applying linear regression or other machine learning techniques such as support vector machines (SVMs), random forests or neural networks etc.; differentiating between supervised vs unsupervised learning techniques etc.; reviewing diagnostics tests to evaluate your models; interpreting your findings; hypothesizing possible reasons and patterns discovered during exploration made through data visualizations ; Communicating and conveying results found via effective presentation slides/documents etc.. Having this understanding will enable you apply different methods of analysis on this data set accurately ad effectively.

Once these concepts are understood you are ready start exploring this data set by first importing it into your visualization software either tableau public/ desktop version/Qlikview / SAS Analytical suite/Python notebooks for building predictive models by loading specified packages based on usage like Scikit Learn if Python is used among others depending on what tool is used . Secondly a brief description of the entire table's column structure has been provided above . Statistical operations can be carried out with simple queries after proper knowledge of basic SQL commands is attained just like queries using sub sets can also be performed with good command over selecting columns while specifying conditions applicable along with sorting operations being done based on specific attributes as required leading up towards writing python codes needed when parsing specific portion of data desired grouping / aggregating different categories before performing any kind of predictions / models can also activated create post joining few tables possible , when ever necessary once again varying across tools being used Thereby diving deep into analyzing available features determined randomly thus creating correlation matrices figures showing distribution relationships using correlation & covariance matrixes , thus making evaluations deducing informative facts since revealing trends identified through corresponding scatter plots from a given metric gathered from appropriate fields!

Research Ideas

• Building a predictive cancer incidence model based on county-level demographic data to identify high-risk areas and target public health interventions.
• Analyzing correlations between age-adjusted death rate, average annual count, and recent trends in order to develop more effective policy initiatives for cancer prevention and healthcare access.
• Utilizing the dataset to construct a machine learning algorithm that can predict county-level mortality rates based on socio-economic factors such as poverty levels and educational attainment rates

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset i...

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).

SEER Limited-Use cancer incidence data with associated population data. Geographic areas available are county and SEER registry. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute collects and distributes high quality, comprehensive cancer data from a number of population-based cancer registries. Data include patient demographics, primary tumor site, morphology, stage at diagnosis, first course of treatment, and follow-up for vital status. The SEER Program is the only comprehensive source of population-based information in the United States that includes stage of cancer at the time of diagnosis and survival rates within each stage.

What are Cancer Statistics in US States?

The circled group of good survivors has genetic indicators of poor survivors (i.e. low ESR1 levels, which is typically the prognostic indicator of poor outcomes in breast cancer) – understanding this group could be critical for helping improve mortality rates for this disease. Why this group survived was quickly analysed by using the Outcome Column (here Event Death - which is binary - 0,1) as a Data Lens (which we term Supervised vs Unsupervised analyses).

How to use this dataset

• A network was built using only gene expression with 272 breast cancer patients (as rows), and 1570 columns.

• Metadata includes patient info, treatment, and survival.

• Each node is a group of patients similar to each other. Flares (left) represent sub-populations that are distinct from the larger population. (One differentiating factor between the two flares is estrogen expression (low = top flare, high = bottom flare)).

• A bottom flare is a group of patients with 100% survival. The top flare shows a range of survival – very poor towards the tip (red), and very good near the base (circled).

Acknowledgments

When we use this dataset in our research, we credit the authors as :

• License : CC BY 4.0.

• This data set is taken from https://query.data.world/s/yi422lv7mkhnydnt4ixrfujmoaglpk .

The main idea for uploading this dataset is to practice data analysis with my students, as I am working in college and want my student to train our studying ideas in a big dataset, It may be not up to date and I mention the collecting years, but it is a good resource of data to practice

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.

This is historical data. The update frequency has been set to "Static Data" and is here for historic value. Updated on 8/14/2024 Cancer Mortality Rate - This indicator shows the age-adjusted mortality rate from cancer (per 100,000 population). Maryland’s age adjusted cancer mortality rate is higher than the US cancer mortality rate. Cancer impacts people across all population groups, however wide racial disparities exist. Link to Data Details

This map shows the incidence rate per 100,000 for all cancer types by county. Counties are shaded based on quartile distribution. The lighter shaded counties have lower cancer incidence rates. The darker shaded counties have higher cancer incidence rates. New York State Community Health Indicator Reports (CHIRS) were developed in 2012, and are updated annually to consolidate and improve data linkages for the health indicators included in the County Health Assessment Indicators (CHAI) for all communities in New York. The CHIRS present data for more than 300 health indicators that are organized by 15 different health topics. Data if provided for all 62 New York State counties, 11 regions (including New York City), the State excluding New York City, and New York State. For more information, check out: http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/chac/indicators/. The "About" tab contains additional details concerning this dataset.

BackgroundAlthough strong exposure to arsenic has been shown to be carcinogenic, its contribution to lung cancer incidence in the United States is not well characterized. We sought to determine if the low-level exposures to arsenic seen in the U.S. are associated with lung cancer incidence after controlling for possible confounders, and to assess the interaction with smoking behavior. MethodologyMeasurements of arsenic stream sediment and soil concentration obtained from the USGS National Geochemical Survey were combined, respectively, with 2008 BRFSS estimates on smoking prevalence and 2000 U.S. Census county level income to determine the effects of these factors on lung cancer incidence, as estimated from respective state-wide cancer registries and the SEER database. Poisson regression was used to determine the association between each variable and age-adjusted county-level lung cancer incidence. ANOVA was used to assess interaction effects between covariates. Principal FindingsSediment levels of arsenic were significantly associated with an increase in incident cases of lung cancer (P

This submission includes publicly available data extracted in its original form. Please reference the Related Publication listed here for source and citation information "The United States Cancer Statistics (USCS) are the official federal statistics on cancer incidence from registries having high-quality data and cancer mortality statistics for 50 states and the District of Columbia. USCS are produced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI)." [Quote from: https://wonder.cdc.gov/cancer.htm]>

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the most frequent cause for cancer-related deaths in women worldwide. Globally, breast cancer accounted for 2.08 million out of 18.08 million new cancer cases (incidence rate of 11.6%) and 626,679 out of 9.55 million cancer-related deaths (6.6% of all cancer-related deaths) in 2018. 1,2 In India, breast cancer has surpassed cancers of the cervix and the oral cavity to be the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer deaths. In 2018, 159,500 new cases of breast cancer were diagnosed, representing 27.7% of all new cancers among Indian women and 11.1% of all cancer deaths.

In india breast cancer cases reporting and diagnotics have increased 10 times in past 3 years . All thanks to the various cancer awareness initiatives by both private and govt. organisations.

This is a linked dataset between drinking water data and cancer data. Drinking Water Data: County-level concentrations of arsenic from CWSs between 2000 and 2010 were collected from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network (NEPHTN) (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018a). Annual mean drinking water arsenic concentrations from 2000 to 2010 were available for a total of 87,662 samples from 75,453 CWS from 26 states, representing 1,425 counties. For samples identified as non-detects, the most frequently reported values were 0.5 ppb and 1 ppb, with a range of 0 ppb to 10 ppb. For non-detect samples reported as zero, the value was substituted with a constant of 0.25 ppb (Almberg et al., 2017; Bulka et al., 2016). Of the samples that were reported as non-detects, 10.87% were reported as zeros. Cancer Data: County-level cancer counts and incidence rates for bladder, colorectal, and kidney cancers were acquired from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and CDC’s State Cancer Profiles for 2011 through 2015 for adults (age ≥ 50) to match the counties with exposure data (National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018a). We utilized the time period 2011-2015 to provide a lag following the exposure period of 2000-2010. The State Cancer Profiles provide age-adjusted county-level cancer incidence, prevalence, mortality rates and average annual counts for 20 different types of cancers and select demographics (National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018b). Counties where there were less than 16 reported cases in a specific county, sex, and/or race category were suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of rate estimates (National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018a). This dataset is associated with the following publication: Krajewski, A., M. Jimenez, K. Rappazzo, D. Lobdell, and J. Jagai. Aggregated Cumulative County Arsenic in Drinking Water and Associations with Bladder, Colorectal, and Kidney Cancers, Accounting for Population Served. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology. Nature Publishing Group, London, UK, 31(6): 979-989, (2021).

This map shows the incidence rate per 100,000 of lung and bronchus cancer by county. Counties are shaded based on quartile distribution. The lighter shaded counties have lower incidence rates of lung and bronchus cancer. The darker shaded counties have higher incidence rates of lung and bronchus cancer. New York State Community Health Indicator Reports (CHIRS) were developed in 2012, and are updated annually to consolidate and improve data linkages for the health indicators included in the County Health Assessment Indicators (CHAI) for all communities in New York. The CHIRS present data for more than 300 health indicators that are organized by 15 different health topics. Data if provided for all 62 New York State counties, 8 regions (including New York City), the State excluding New York City, and New York State. For more information, check out: http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/chac/indicators/. The "About" tab contains additional details concerning this dataset.

This map shows the incidence age-adjusted rate per 100,000 for all cancer types by county. Counties are shaded based on quartile distribution. The lighter shaded counties have a lower all cancer incidence age-adjusted rate. The darker shaded counties have a higher all cancer incidence age-adjusted rate. New York State Community Health Indicator Reports (CHIRS) were developed in 2012, and are updated annually to consolidate and improve data linkages for the health indicators included in the County Health Assessment Indicators (CHAI) for all communities in New York. The CHIRS present data for more than 300 health indicators that are organized by 15 different health topics. Data if provided for all 62 New York State counties, 11 regions (including New York City), the State excluding New York City, and New York State. For more information, check out: http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/chac/indicators/. The "About" tab contains additional details concerning this dataset..

Background. Age-adjusted US total pediatric cancer incidence rates (TPCIR) rose 49% 1975-2015 for unknown reasons. Prenatal cannabis exposure has been linked with several pediatric cancers which together comprise the majority of pediatric cancer types. We investigated whether cannabis use was related spatiotemporally and causally to TPCIR.

Methods. State-based age-adjusted TPCIR data was taken from the CDC Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results cancer database 2003-2017. Drug exposure was taken from the nationally-representative National Survey of Drug Use and Health, response rate 74.1%. Drugs included were: tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, opioid analgesics and cocaine. This was supplemented by cannabinoid concentration data from the Drug Enforcement Agency and ethnicity and median household income data from US Census.

Results. TPCIR rose while all drug use nationally fell, except for cannabis which rose. TPCIR in the highest cannabis use quintile was greater than in the lowest (β-estimate=1.31 (95%C.I. 0.82, 1.80), P=1.80x10-7) and the time:highest two quintiles interaction was significant (β-estimate=0.1395 (0.82, 1.80), P=1.00x10-14). In robust inverse probability weighted additive regression models cannabis was independently associated with TPCIR (β-estimate=9.55 (3.95, 15.15), P=0.0016). In interactive geospatiotemporal models including all drug, ethnic and income variables cannabis use was independently significant (β-estimate=45.67 (18.77, 72.56), P=0.0009). In geospatial models temporally lagged to 1,2,4 and 6 years interactive terms including cannabis were significant. Cannabis interactive terms at one and two degrees of spatial lagging were significant (from β-estimate=3954.04 (1565.01, 6343.09), P=0.0012). The interaction between the cannabinoids THC and cannabigerol was significant at zero, 2 and 6 years lag (from β-estimate=46.22 (30.06, 62.38), P=2.10x10-8). Cannabis legalization was associated with higher TPCIR (β-estimate=1.51 (0.68, 2.35), P=0.0004) and cannabis-liberal regimes were associated with higher time:TPCIR interaction (β-estimate=1.87x10-4, (2.9x10-5, 2.45x10-4), P=0.0208). 33/56 minimum e-Values were >5 and 6 were infinite.

Conclusion. Data confirm a close relationship across space and lagged time between cannabis and TPCIR which was robust to adjustment, supported by inverse probability weighting procedures and accompanied by high e-Values making confounding unlikely and establishing the causal relationship. Cannabis-liberal jurisdictions were associated with higher rates of TPCIR and a faster rate of TPCIR increase. Data inform the broader general consideration of cannabinoid-induced genotoxicity.

BackgroundDespite being the second leading cause of death in the United States, cancer disproportionately affects underserved communities due to multiple social factors like economic instability and limited healthcare access, leading to worse survival outcomes. This cross-sectional database study involves real-world data to explore the relationship between the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), a measure of community resilience to disasters, and disparities in screening, incidence, and mortality rates of breast, colorectal, and lung cancer. The SVI encompasses four themes: socioeconomic status, household composition & disability, minority status & language, and housing type & transportation.Materials and methodsUsing county-level data, this study compared cancer metrics in U.S. counties and the impact of high and low SVI. Two-sided statistical analysis was performed to compare SVI tertiles and cancer screening, incidence, and mortality rates. The outcomes were analyzed with logistic regression to determine the odds ratio of SVI counties having cancer metrics at or above the median.ResultsOur study encompassed 3,132 United States counties. From publicly available SVI data, we demonstrated that high SVI scores correlate with low breast and colorectal cancer screening rates, along with high incidence and mortality rates for all three types of cancers. County level SVI has impact on incidence rates of cancers; breast cancer rates were lowest in high SVI counties, while colorectal and lung cancer rates were highest in the same counties. Age-adjusted mortality rates for all three cancers increased across SVI tertiles. After risk adjustment, a 10-point SVI increase correlated with lower screening and higher mortality rates.ConclusionIn conclusion, our study establishes a significant correlation between SVI and cancer metrics, highlighting the potential to identify marginalized communities with health disparities for targeted healthcare initiatives. It underscores the need for further longitudinal studies on bridging the gap in overall cancer care in the United States.

IntroductionSociodemographic disparities in genitourinary cancer-related mortality have been insufficiently studied, particularly across multiple cancer types. This study aimed to investigate gender, racial, and geographic disparities in mortality rates for the most common genitourinary cancers in the United States.MethodsMortality data for prostate, bladder, kidney, and testicular cancers were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) WONDER database between 1999 and 2020. Age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) were analyzed by year, gender, race, urban–rural status, and geographic region using a significance level of p < 0.05.ResultsOverall, AAMRs for prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer declined significantly, while testicular cancer-related mortality remained stable. Bladder and kidney cancer AAMRs were 3–4 times higher in males than females. Prostate cancer mortality was highest in black individuals/African Americans and began increasing after 2015. Bladder cancer mortality decreased significantly in White individuals, Black individuals, African Americans, and Asians/Pacific Islanders but remained stable in American Indian/Alaska Natives. Kidney cancer-related mortality was highest in White individuals but declined significantly in other races. Testicular cancer mortality increased significantly in White individuals but remained stable in Black individuals and African Americans. Genitourinary cancer mortality decreased in metropolitan areas but either increased (bladder and testicular cancer) or remained stable (kidney cancer) in non-metropolitan areas. Prostate and kidney cancer mortality was highest in the Midwest, bladder cancer in the South, and testicular cancer in the West.DiscussionSignificant sociodemographic disparities exist in the mortality trends of genitourinary cancers in the United States. These findings highlight the need for targeted interventions and further research to address these disparities and improve outcomes for all populations affected by genitourinary cancers.

https://www.cancerimagingarchive.net/wp-content/uploads/nctn-logo-300x108.png" alt="" width="300" height="108" />

Demographic Summary of Available Imaging

Characteristic	Value (N = 26254)
Age (years)	Mean ± SD: 61.4± 5 Median (IQR): 60 (57-65) Range: 43-75
Sex	Male: 15512 (59%) Female: 10742 (41%)
Race	White: 23969 (91.3%) Black: 1135 (4.3%) Asian: 547 (2.1%) American Indian/Alaska Native: 88 (0.3%) Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: 87 (0.3%) Unknown: 428 (1.6%)
Ethnicity	Not Available

Background: The aggressive and heterogeneous nature of lung cancer has thwarted efforts to reduce mortality from this cancer through the use of screening. The advent of low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) altered the landscape of lung-cancer screening, with studies indicating that low-dose CT detects many tumors at early stages. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was conducted to determine whether screening with low-dose CT could reduce mortality from lung cancer.

Methods: From August 2002 through April 2004, we enrolled 53,454 persons at high risk for lung cancer at 33 U.S. medical centers. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo three annual screenings with either low-dose CT (26,722 participants) or single-view posteroanterior chest radiography (26,732). Data were collected on cases of lung cancer and deaths from lung cancer that occurred through December 31, 2009. This dataset includes the low-dose CT scans from 26,254 of these subjects, as well as digitized histopathology images from 451 subjects.

Results: The rate of adherence to screening was more than 90%. The rate of positive screening tests was 24.2% with low-dose CT and 6.9% with radiography over all three rounds. A total of 96.4% of the positive screening results in the low-dose CT group and 94.5% in the radiography group were false positive results. The incidence of lung cancer was 645 cases per 100,000 person-years (1060 cancers) in the low-dose CT group, as compared with 572 cases per 100,000 person-years (941 cancers) in the radiography group (rate ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.23). There were 247 deaths from lung cancer per 100,000 person-years in the low-dose CT group and 309 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the radiography group, representing a relative reduction in mortality from lung cancer with low-dose CT screening of 20.0% (95% CI, 6.8 to 26.7; P=0.004). The rate of death from any cause was reduced in the low-dose CT group, as compared with the radiography group, by 6.7% (95% CI, 1.2 to 13.6; P=0.02).

Conclusions: Screening with the use of low-dose CT reduces mortality from lung cancer. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; National Lung Screening Trial ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385).

Data Availability: A summary of the National Lung Screening Trial and its available datasets are provided on the Cancer Data Access System (CDAS). CDAS is maintained by Information Management System (IMS), contracted by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) as keepers and statistical analyzers of the NLST trial data. The full clinical data set from NLST is available through CDAS. Users of TCIA can download without restriction a publicly distributable subset of that clinical data, along with the CT and Histopathology images collected during the trial. (These previously were restricted.)

ABSTRACT Objective To determine and discuss cancer mortality rates in southern Brazil between 1988 and 2012. Methods This was a critical review of literature based on analysis of data concerning incidence and mortality of prostate cancer, breast cancer, bronchial and lung cancer, and uterine and ovarian cancer. Data were collected from the online database of the Brazil Instituto Nacional de Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva. Results The southern Brazil is the leading region of cancer incidence and mortality. Data on the cancer profile of this population are scarce especially in the States of Santa Catarina and Paraná. We observed inconsistency between data from hospital registers and death recorded. Conclusion Both cancer incidence and the mortality are high in Brazil. In addition, Brazil has great numbers of registers and deaths for cancer compared to worldwide rates. Regional risk factors might explain the high cancer rates.