| Literature DB >> 20049256 |
Tahsin Yomralioglu1, Ebru H Colak, Arif C Aydinoglu.
Abstract
Cancer is an important health issue in Turkey because it ranks as the second cause of death in the country. Examination of the relationships between the distribution of cancer cases and geo-environmental factors is significant in determining the causes of cancer. In this study, GIS were used to provide data about the distribution of cancer types in Trabzon province, Turkey. To determine the cancer occurrence density, the cancer incidence rates were calculated according to local census data, then a cancer density map was produced, and correlations between cancer types and geographical factors were examined.Entities:
Keywords: GIS; cancer; cancer map; epidemiology, statistical map
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 20049256 PMCID: PMC2800344 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph6123190
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1.Study Area.
Required spatial data themes.
| County | ILCE | IDBK | Administration Unit Code | ||
| District/Village | MAKO | IDBK | Administration Unit Code | ||
| Road | YOLH | ISIM | Road Name | ||
| Elevation | YUKS | YUKS | Elavation | ||
| Digital Elevation Model | SAYM | YUGR | Elevation Classification | ||
| Satellite image | Landsat 7 | ETM+ image, 2003 | |||
| Land Cover | AROR | ARKS | Land Cover Classification | ||
| Cancer Registry | KAKA | SEX | Patient’s sex | ||
Figure 2.Distribution map of cancer cases.
The most common cancer types with respect to sex in Trabzon (out of population 2004).
| Lung | 28.5 | 5.2 | 19.1 |
| Skin | 11.1 | 14.3 | 12.3 |
| Breast | 0.3 | 24.2 | 9.9 |
| Stomach | 9.3 | 9.7 | 9.5 |
| Bladder | 10.5 | 1.3 | 6.8 |
| Prostate | 8.2 | - | 4.9 |
| Thyroid | 1.2 | 10.2 | 4.8 |
| Other | 30.9 | 35.1 | 32.7 |
Figure 3.Cancer incidence map of Trabzon province in Turkey.
The number of administrative units on groups of incidence rates.
| 0 | 232 | 39 |
| 1–150 | 124 | 21 |
| 151–300 | 109 | 18 |
| 301–600 | 105 | 18 |
| 601–987 | 26 | 4 |
Figure 4.The distribution map of cancer cases based on land cover.
The number of cancer cases within each land cover class.
| Forestry | 389 | 34 |
| Agricultural area | 299 | 26 |
| Hazelnut | 243 | 21 |
| Residential area | 211 | 18 |
| Tea | 8 | 1 |
Crosstab presenting the relationship between land cover and cancer types.
| Count | ||||||||||
| Expected count | 125 | 62 | 52 | 85 | 34 | 27 | 23 | 142 | 550 | |
| % of Total | 122.9 | 67.9 | 54.5 | 76 | 37.3 | 26.8 | 26.3 | 138.2 | 550 | |
| Adj. | 10.9% | 5.4% | 4.5% | 7.4% | 3% | 2.3% | 2% | 12.3% | 47.8% | |
| Residual | 0.3 | −1.1 | −0.5 | 1.5 | −0.8 | 0.1 | −0.9 | 0.5 | ||
| Count | ||||||||||
| Expected count | 55 | 19 | 29 | 25 | 12 | 9 | 5 | 57 | 211 | |
| % of Total | 47.2 | 26.1 | 20.9 | 29.2 | 14.3 | 10.3 | 10.1 | 53 | 211 | |
| Adj. | 4.8% | 1.7% | 2.5% | 2.2% | 1% | 0.08% | 0.4% | 5% | 18.3% | |
| Residual | 1.4 | −1.6 | 2.1 | −0.9 | −0.7 | −0.5 | −1.8 | 0.7 | ||
| Count | ||||||||||
| Expected count | 77 | 61 | 33 | 49 | 32 | 20 | 27 | 90 | 389 | |
| % of Total | 86.9 | 48 | 38.6 | 53.8 | 26.4 | 18.9 | 18.6 | 97.8 | 389 | |
| Adj. | 6.7% | 5.3% | 2.9% | 4.3% | 2.8% | 1.7% | 2.3% | 7.8% | 33.8% | |
| Residual | −1.5 | 2.5 | −1.2 | −0.9 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 2.5 | −1.1 | ||
| Count | 257 | 142 | 114 | 159 | 78 | 56 | 55 | 289 | 1150 | |
| % of Total | 22.3% | 12.3% | 9.9% | 13.8% | 6.8% | 4.9% | 4.8% | 25.1% | 100% | |
Figure 5.The distribution map of cancer cases based on elevation.
Crosstab presenting the relationship between elevation and cancer types.
| Count | 145 | 66 | 77 | 83 | 42 | 29 | 21 | 160 | 623 | |
| Expected count | 139.2 | 76.9 | 61.8 | 86.1 | 42.3 | 30.3 | 29.8 | 156.6 | 623 | |
| % of Total | 2.6% | 5.7% | 6.7% | 7.2% | 3.7% | 2.5% | 1.8% | 13.9% | 54.2% | |
| Adj. Residual | 0.8 | −2.0 | 3.0 | −0.5 | −0.1 | −0.4 | −2.4 | 0.5 | ||
| Count | 53 | 37 | 23 | 29 | 15 | 9 | 17 | 55 | 238 | |
| Expected count | 53.2 | 29.4 | 23.6 | 32.9 | 16.1 | 11.6 | 11.4 | 59.8 | 238 | |
| % of Total | 4.6% | 3.2% | 2% | 2.5% | 1.3% | 0.8% | 1.5% | 4.8% | 20.7% | |
| Adj. Residual | 0 | 1.7 | −0.1 | −0.8 | −0.3 | −0.9 | 1.9 | −0.8 | ||
| Count | 24 | 17 | 6 | 26 | 12 | 6 | 5 | 32 | 128 | |
| Expected count | 28.6 | 15.8 | 12.7 | 17.7 | 8.7 | 6.2 | 6.1 | 32.2 | 128 | |
| % of Total | 2.1% | 1.5% | 0.5% | 2.3% | 1% | 0.5% | 0.4% | 2.8% | 11.1% | |
| Adj. Residual | −1.0 | 0.3 | −2.1 | 2.3 | 1.2 | −0.1 | −0.5 | 0 | ||
| Count | 14 | 12 | 5 | 8 | 3 | 10 | 5 | 19 | 76 | |
| Expected count | 17 | 9.4 | 7.5 | 10.5 | 5.2 | 3.7 | 3.6 | 19.1 | 76 | |
| % of Total | 1.2% | 1% | 0.4% | 0.7% | 0.3% | 0.9% | 0.4% | 1.7% | 6.6% | |
| Adj. Residual | v0.9 | 0.9 | −1.0 | −0.9 | −1.0 | 3.5 | 0.8 | 0 | ||
| Count | 21 | 10 | 3 | 13 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 23 | 85 | |
| Expected count | 19 | 10.5 | 8.4 | 11.8 | 5.8 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 21.4 | 85 | |
| % of Total | 1.8% | 0.9% | 0.3% | 1.1% | 0.5% | 0.2% | 0.6% | 2% | 7.4% | |
| Adj. Residual | 0.5 | −0.2 | −2.0 | 0.4 | 0.1 | −1.1 | 1.6 | 0.4 | ||
| Count | 257 | 142 | 114 | 159 | 78 | 56 | 55 | 289 | 1,150 | |
| % of Total | 22.3% | 12.3% | 9.9% | 13.8% | 6.8% | 4.9% | 4.8% | 25.1% | 100% | |