Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival. Incidence data, available through 2015, were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data, available through 2016, were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2019, 1,762,450 new cancer cases and 606,880 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Over the past decade of data, the cancer incidence rate (2006-2015) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% per year in men, whereas the cancer death rate (2007-2016) declined annually by 1.4% and 1.8%, respectively. The overall cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2016 by a total of 27%, translating into approximately 2,629,200 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak. Although the racial gap in cancer mortality is slowly narrowing, socioeconomic inequalities are widening, with the most notable gaps for the most preventable cancers. For example, compared with the most affluent counties, mortality rates in the poorest counties were 2-fold higher for cervical cancer and 40% higher for male lung and liver cancers during 2012-2016. Some states are home to both the wealthiest and the poorest counties, suggesting the opportunity for more equitable dissemination of effective cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment strategies. A broader application of existing cancer control knowledge with an emphasis on disadvantaged groups would undoubtedly accelerate progress against cancer.

https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.3322/caac.21551

Cancer statistics, 2019.

Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival. Incidence data, available through 2014, were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data, available through 2015, were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, 1,735,350 new cancer cases and 609,640 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Over the past decade of data, the cancer incidence rate (2005-2014) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% annually in men, while the cancer death rate (2006-2015) declined by about 1.5% annually in both men and women. The combined cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2015 by a total of 26%, translating to approximately 2,378,600 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak. Of the 10 leading causes of death, only cancer declined from 2014 to 2015. In 2015, the cancer death rate was 14% higher in non-Hispanic blacks (NHBs) than non-Hispanic whites (NHWs) overall (death rate ratio [DRR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.13-1.15), but the racial disparity was much larger for individuals aged <65 years (DRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.29-1.32) compared with those aged ≥65 years (DRR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09) and varied substantially by state. For example, the cancer death rate was lower in NHBs than NHWs in Massachusetts for all ages and in New York for individuals aged ≥65 years, whereas for those aged <65 years, it was 3 times higher in NHBs in the District of Columbia (DRR, 2.89; 95% CI, 2.16-3.91) and about 50% higher in Wisconsin (DRR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.56-2.02), Kansas (DRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.25-1.81), Louisiana (DRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.60), Illinois (DRR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.39-1.57), and California (DRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.38-1.54). Larger racial inequalities in young and middle-aged adults probably partly reflect less access to high-quality health care. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:7-30. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.3322/caac.21442

Cancer statistics, 2018

With increasing incidence and mortality, cancer is the leading cause of death in China and is a major public health problem. Because of China's massive population (1.37 billion), previous national incidence and mortality estimates have been limited to small samples of the population using data from the 1990s or based on a specific year. With high-quality data from an additional number of population-based registries now available through the National Central Cancer Registry of China, the authors analyzed data from 72 local, population-based cancer registries (2009-2011), representing 6.5% of the population, to estimate the number of new cases and cancer deaths for 2015. Data from 22 registries were used for trend analyses (2000-2011). The results indicated that an estimated 4292,000 new cancer cases and 2814,000 cancer deaths would occur in China in 2015, with lung cancer being the most common incident cancer and the leading cause of cancer death. Stomach, esophageal, and liver cancers were also commonly diagnosed and were identified as leading causes of cancer death. Residents of rural areas had significantly higher age-standardized (Segi population) incidence and mortality rates for all cancers combined than urban residents (213.6 per 100,000 vs 191.5 per 100,000 for incidence; 149.0 per 100,000 vs 109.5 per 100,000 for mortality, respectively). For all cancers combined, the incidence rates were stable during 2000 through 2011 for males (+0.2% per year; P = .1), whereas they increased significantly (+2.2% per year; P < .05) among females. In contrast, the mortality rates since 2006 have decreased significantly for both males (-1.4% per year; P < .05) and females (-1.1% per year; P < .05). Many of the estimated cancer cases and deaths can be prevented through reducing the prevalence of risk factors, while increasing the effectiveness of clinical care delivery, particularly for those living in rural areas and in disadvantaged populations.

https://researchpubs.cancercouncil.com.au/cancercounciljspui/bitstream/1/1728/1/caac21338.pdf

Cancer statistics in China, 2015

Secret History: Return of the Black Death Channel 4, 7-8pm In 1348 the Black Death swept through London, killing people within days of the appearance of their first symptoms. Exactly how many died, and why, has long been a mystery. This Secret History documentary follows experts as they pick through the evidence and reveal why the plague killed on such a scale. And they ask, what might be coming next?

Medscape

Background
Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

Objectives
To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

Search methods
For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

Selection criteria
We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:

A) 'choice made' attributes;

B) 'decision-making process' attributes.

Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

Main results
This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.

Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).

A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:

Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).

B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:

Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:

a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);

b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and

c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).

Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.

C) Secondary outcomes

Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.

The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

Authors' conclusions
There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.

New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

/pdf/decision-aids-for-people-facing-health-treatment-or-1j1706q17l.pdf

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

Cancer-related mortality in the US-Affiliated Pacific Island (USAPI) jurisdictions is unknown This is the first ever reporting of cancer-related mortality in the USAPI using cancer registry data The individual USAPI jurisdictions collected incident cancer data and submitted it to the Pacific Regional Central Cancer Registry (PRCCR) All cases reported to PRCCR (n = 3,118) with vital status of dead (n = 1,323) during 2008-2013 were examined Cause of death was coded based on clinical information provided in the cancer registry Incidencebased mortality (IBM) rates were calculated using SEER*Stat software and age adjusted to the US standard population Total cancer IBM rates among males were highest in Palau (1515 per 100,000), Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI, 1420), and Guam (1332); rates were lowest in American Samoa (217), the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI, 227), and the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM, 289) Total cancer IBM rates among females were highest in RMI (1203 per 100,000), Palau (1077), and Guam (722); rates were lowest in CNMI (190), FSM (232), and American Samoa (428) The median time from cancer diagnosis to death was 8-28 days in the Freely Associated States and 102-128 days in the Flag Territories IBM rates were higher among individuals in USAPI jurisdictions than among Asian/ Pacific Islanders in Hawai'i for many cancers preventable through vaccination, smoking cessation, overweight and obesity prevention, and cancer screening Geographic remoteness, underreporting, delay in reporting, and challenges with accurate death registration and certification led to lower IBM rates for some jurisdictions These mortality data can help prioritize evidence-based interventions to reduce cancer-related deaths through risk factor reduction, early detection, and improved quality of life after a cancer diagnosis through palliative care

Cancer Mortality in the US-Affiliated Pacific Islands, 2008-2013.

BACKGROUND

When used appropriately, sunscreen decreases the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure to the skin and is recommended to prevent skin cancer. This study examined the association between annual average UV index and sunscreen use among White, non-Hispanic youth.



METHODS

The 2007 and 2009 national Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) data were analyzed. The YRBS is a school-based, cross-sectional study that uses a 3-stage cluster sample design to obtain a nationally representative sample of public and private high school students in the United States. Overall response rates were 68% and 72% (N = 14,041 and 16,410, respectively). Logistic regression analyzes, controlling for grade, examined whether annual average (mean) UV index where students attend school, a proxy measure of potential sunlight exposure, was associated with sunscreen use.



RESULTS

Among White male students, as the mean UV index increased, the adjusted odds of never wearing sunscreen increased (adjusted odds ratio, AOR = 1.15 [95% CI = 1.04, 1.27], p < .01) and the adjusted odds of most of the time or always wearing sunscreen decreased (AOR = 0.85 [0.78, 0.94], p < .01). There was no association between sunscreen use and mean UV index among White female students.



CONCLUSION

These findings suggest a need for renewed public health efforts among school, clinical, and public health professionals to promote sunscreen use as part of a comprehensive approach to prevent skin cancer. School and community approaches that passively protect young people from the sun should be considered as a complement to efforts to increase sunscreen use.

Association of UV Index and Sunscreen Use Among White High School Students in the United States

Objective-The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends biennial mammography screening for women aged 50-74 to reduce mortality from breast cancer. In the United States, foreign-born women have historically had higher breast cancer mortality rates than their U.S.-born peers. This report presents national estimates of mammography screening among women by nativity, birthplace, and percentage of lifetime living in the United States. Methods-Combined data were analyzed from 29,951 women aged 50-74 years who participated in the 2005, 2008, 2010, 2013, and 2015 National Health Interview Survey. The percentage of these women who ever had a mammogram and met the USPSTF recommendations for screening by nativity, birthplace, and percentage of lifetime in the United States was generated. Estimates were adjusted for selected demographic, socioeconomic, and health care access and utilization factors and presented as predictive margins. Results-Overall, foreign-born women were less likely than U.S.-born women to have ever had a mammogram (88.3% compared with 94.1%). Foreign-born women living in the United States for less than 25% of their lifetime were less likely to have ever had a mammogram (76.4%) or meet the USPSTF recommendations (55.0%) compared with U.S.-born women. Foreign-born women living in the United States for 25% or more of their lifetime were also less likely to have ever had a mammogram (90.9%) compared with U.S.-born women. After adjustment for selected sociodemographic characteristics, the percentage of foreign-born women who ever received a mammogram increased but was still lower than that of U.S.-born women. Foreign-born women residing in the United States for less than 25% of their lifetime were as likely as U.S.-born women to have met the USPSTF recommendations (72.1% and 72.4%, respectively), while those residing in the United States for 25% or more of their lifetime (75.1%) were more likely to do so than U.S.-born women. Differences by birthplace were also observed.

/pdf/breast-cancer-screening-among-women-by-nativity-birthplace-34srn93de6.pdf

Breast Cancer Screening Among Women by Nativity, Birthplace, and Length of Time in the United States.

Importance
Since 1996, the US Preventive Services Task Force has recommended against cervical cancer screening in average-risk women 65 years or older with adequate prior screening. Little is known about the use of cervical cancer screening-associated services in this age group.


Objective
To examine annual use trends in cervical cancer screening-associated services, specifically cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) tests, colposcopy, and cervical procedures (loop electrosurgical excision procedure, cone biopsy, and ablation) in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries during January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2019, and estimate expenditures for services performed in 2019.


Design, Setting, and Participants
This population-based, cross-sectional analysis included health service use data across 21 years for women aged 65 to 114 years with Medicare fee-for-service coverage (15-16 million women per year). Data analysis was conducted between July 2021 and April 2022.


Main Outcomes and Measures
Proportion of testing modalities (cytology alone, cytology plus HPV testing [cotesting], HPV testing alone); annual use rate per 100 000 women of cytology and HPV testing, colposcopy, and cervical procedures from 1999 to 2019; Medicare expenditure for these services in 2019.


Results
There were 15 323 635 women 65 years and older with Medicare fee-for-service coverage in 1999 and 15 298 656 in 2019. In 2019, the mean (SD) age of study population was 76.2 (8.1) years, 5.1% were Hispanic, 0.5% were non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native, 3.0% were non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander, 7.4% were non-Hispanic Black, and 82.0% were non-Hispanic White. From 1999 to 2019, the percentage of women who received at least 1 cytology or HPV test decreased from 18.9% (2.9 million women) in 1999 to 8.5% (1.3 million women) in 2019, a reduction of 55.3%; use rates of colposcopy and cervical procedures decreased 43.2% and 64.4%, respectively. Trend analyses showed a 4.6% average annual reduction in use of cytology or HPV testing during 1999 to 2019 (P < .001). Use rates of colposcopy and cervical procedures decreased before 2015 then plateaued during 2015 to 2019. The total Medicare expenditure for all services rendered in 2019 was about $83.5 million. About 3% of women older than 80 years received at least 1 service at a cost of $7.4 million in 2019.


Conclusions and Relevance
The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that while annual use of cervical cancer screening-associated services in the Medicare fee-for-service population older than 65 years has decreased during the last 2 decades, more than 1.3 million women received these services in 2019 at substantial costs.

Mona Saraiya

Papers

Cancer Mortality in the US-Affiliated Pacific Islands, 2008-2013.

Association of UV Index and Sunscreen Use Among White High School Students in the United States

Breast Cancer Screening Among Women by Nativity, Birthplace, and Length of Time in the United States.

Use Trends and Recent Expenditures for Cervical Cancer Screening-Associated Services in Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries Older Than 65 Years.

Development of a public health research program for ovarian cancer.