BACKGROUND: Comparisons of incidence and mortality rates are the metrics used most commonly to define cancer-related racial disparities. In the US, and particularly in South Carolina, these largely disfavor African Americans (AAs). Computed from readily available data sources, the mortality-to-incidence rate ratio (MIR) provides a population-based indicator of survival. METHODS: South Carolina Central Cancer Registry incidence data and Vital Registry death data were used to construct MIRs. ArcGIS 9.2 mapping software was used to map cancer MIRs by sex and race for 8 Health Regions within South Carolina for all cancers combined and for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, oral, and prostate cancers. RESULTS: Racial differences in cancer MIRs were observed for both sexes for all cancers combined and for most individual sites. The largest racial differences were observed for female breast, prostate, and oral cancers, and AAs had MIRs nearly twice those of European Americans (EAs). CONCLUSIONS: Comparing and mapping race- and sex-specific cancer MIRs provides a powerful way to observe the scope of the cancer problem. By using these methods, in the current study, AAs had much higher cancer MIRs compared with EAs for most cancer sites in nearly all regions of South Carolina. Future work must be directed at explaining and addressing the underlying differences in cancer outcomes by region and race. MIR mapping allows for pinpointing areas where future research has the greatest likelihood of identifying the causes of large, persistent, cancer-related disparities. Other regions with access to high-quality data may find it useful to compare MIRs and conduct MIR mapping. (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: Comparisons of incidence and mortality rates are the metrics used most commonly to define cancer-related racial disparities. In the US, and particularly in South Carolina, these largely disfavor African Americans (AAs). Computed from readily available data sources, the mortality-to-incidence rate ratio (MIR) provides a population-based indicator of survival. METHODS: South Carolina Central Cancer Registry incidence data and Vital Registry death data were used to construct MIRs. ArcGIS 9.2 mapping software was used to map cancer MIRs by sex and race for 8 Health Regions within South Carolina for all cancers combined and for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, oral, and prostate cancers. RESULTS: Racial differences in cancer MIRs were observed for both sexes for all cancers combined and for most individual sites. The largest racial differences were observed for female breast, prostate, and oral cancers, and AAs had MIRs nearly twice those of European Americans (EAs). CONCLUSIONS: Comparing and mapping race- and sex-specific cancer MIRs provides a powerful way to observe the scope of the cancer problem. By using these methods, in the current study, AAs had much higher cancer MIRs compared with EAs for most cancer sites in nearly all regions of South Carolina. Future work must be directed at explaining and addressing the underlying differences in cancer outcomes by region and race. MIR mapping allows for pinpointing areas where future research has the greatest likelihood of identifying the causes of large, persistent, cancer-related disparities. Other regions with access to high-quality data may find it useful to compare MIRs and conduct MIR mapping. (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Heather M Brandt; Mary V Modayil; Deborah Hurley; Lucia A Pirisi-Creek; Mary G Johnson; Jennifer Davis; Subbi P I Mathur; James R Hebert Journal: J S C Med Assoc Date: 2006-08
Authors: Virginie G Daguise; James B Burch; Marie-Josephe Horner; Catishia Mosley; Lorne J Hofseth; Michael J Wargovich; Stephen C Lloyd; James R Hebert Journal: J S C Med Assoc Date: 2006-08
Authors: James R Hebert; Swann Arp Adams; Virginie G Daguise; Deborah Hurley; Eric W Smith; Carryn Purdon; Andrew Lawson; Michael Mitas; Carolyn E Reed Journal: J S C Med Assoc Date: 2006-08
Authors: Sara E Wagner; James B Burch; Jim Hussey; Tom Temples; Susan Bolick-Aldrich; Catishia Mosley-Broughton; Yuan Liu; James R Hebert Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2008-10-24 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Nancy Krieger; Jarvis T Chen; Pamela D Waterman; David H Rehkopf; S V Subramanian Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Daniela B Friedman; Vicki M Young; Darcy A Freedman; Swann Arp Adams; Heather M Brandt; Sudha Xirasagar; Tisha M Felder; John R Ureda; Thomas Hurley; Leepao Khang; Dayna Campbell; James R Hébert Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Sara E Wagner; Deborah M Hurley; James R Hébert; Chrissy McNamara; A Rana Bayakly; John E Vena Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Michael B Cook; Katherine A McGlynn; Susan S Devesa; Neal D Freedman; William F Anderson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: James R Hébert; Thomas G Hurley; Brook E Harmon; Sue Heiney; Christine J Hebert; Susan E Steck Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Mary C White; David K Espey; Judith Swan; Charles L Wiggins; Christie Eheman; Judith S Kaur Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-04-22 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Marcus Plescia; Sarah Jane Henley; Anne Pate; J Michael Underwood; Kris Rhodes Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-04-22 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Malcolm Bevel; Oluwole A Babatunde; Sue P Heiney; Heather M Brandt; Michael D Wirth; Thomas G Hurley; Samira Khan; Hiluv Johnson; Cassandra M Wineglass; Tatiana Y Warren; E Angela Murphy; Erica Sercy; Amanda S Thomas; James R Hébert; Swann Arp Adams Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 1.847
Authors: J Brent Peel; Xuemei Sui; Charles E Matthews; Swann A Adams; James R Hébert; James W Hardin; Timothy S Church; Steven N Blair Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-03-17 Impact factor: 4.254