| Literature DB >> 21829198 |
P K Dhillon1, B B Yeole, R Dikshit, A P Kurkure, F Bray.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Demographic, socioeconomic and cultural changes in India have increased longevity, delayed childbearing, decreased parity and resulted in a more westernised lifestyle, contributing to the increasing burden of cancer, especially among women.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21829198 PMCID: PMC3188937 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2011.301
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Cancer ISSN: 0007-0920 Impact factor: 7.640
Number of cases and age-adjusted incidence rates for females in Mumbai, India 1976–1980 and 2001–2005 (average annual population at risk, 1.01 and 2.12 million, respectively)
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Breast | 331 | 21 | 39.5 | 1001 | 32 | 55.2 | 1.1 (1.0 to 1.3) | 0.5 (0.0 to 1.0) |
| Cervix | 348 | 23 | 41.1 | 483 | 16 | 26.6 | −1.8 (−2.0 to −1.6) | −2.8 (−3.2 to –2.3) |
| Ovary | 101 | 7 | 12.2 | 217 | 7 | 12.2 | 0.3 (−0.1 to 0.6) | −1.4 (−2.2 to −0.5) |
Abbreviations: ASR=age-standardised incidence rate; EAPC=estimated annual percentage changes based on the drift; 95% CI=95% confidence interval.
Mean annual incidence (among females aged 30–64 years).
% Of total cancer incidence (among females aged 30–64 years).
Truncated (among females aged 30–64 years) ASRs (World standard).
The estimated annual percent change (EAPC) for the whole period (1976–2005) and more recent period (1991–2005) are also given.
Figure 1Comparison of time trends of truncated (30–64 years) age-standardised (world) rates of (A) female breast cancer; (B) cervical cancer; (C) ovarian cancer in Mumbai females 1976–2005, vs selected populations worldwide 1973–2002, extracted from successive volumes of Cancer Incidence in Five Continents.
Figure 2Observed rates of (A) female breast cancer; (B) cervical cancer; (C) ovarian cancer in Mumbai females aged 30–64 and diagnosed 1976–2005. Rates are plotted vs calendar period and birth cohort for each age at diagnosis group.
Analysis of deviance of age–period–cohort models: overall goodness-of-fit and significance of model effects by cancer, trends in incidence in Mumbai 1976–2005
|
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| 0 | Age | 266.4 | 35 | <0.01 | — | — | — | ||
| 1 | Age+drift | 101.8 | 34 | <0.01 | 1 | Drift | 164.6 | 1 | <0.01 |
| 2 | Age+period | 56.4 | 30 | <0.01 | 2 | NL period | 45.4 | 4 | <0.01 |
| 3 | Age+cohort | 56.1 | 24 | <0.01 | 3 | NL cohort | 45.7 | 10 | <0.01 |
| 4 | Age+period+cohort | 28.2 | 20 | 0.10 | 4 | NL period | 27.9 | 4 | <0.01 |
| 4 | NL cohort | 28.2 | 10 | <0.01 | |||||
|
| |||||||||
| 0 | Age | 441.5 | 35 | <0.01 | — | — | — | ||
| 1 | Age+drift | 100.3 | 34 | <0.01 | 1 | Drift | 341.2 | 1 | <0.01 |
| 2 | Age+period | 71 | 30 | <0.01 | 2 | NL period | 29.2 | 4 | <0.01 |
| 3 | Age+cohort | 44.3 | 24 | 0.01 | 3 | NL cohort | 56 | 10 | <0.01 |
| 4 | Age+period+cohort | 34.4 | 20 | 0.02 | 4 | NL period | 9.9 | 4 | 0.04 |
| 4 | NL cohort | 36.7 | 10 | <0.01 | |||||
|
| |||||||||
| 0 | Age | 45.7 | 35 | 0.11 | — | — | — | ||
| 1 | Age+drift | 43.5 | 34 | 0.13 | 1 | Drift | 2.2 | 1 | 0.14 |
| 2 | Age+period | 21.0 | 30 | 0.89 | 2 | NL period | 22.5 | 4 | <0.01 |
| 3 | Age+cohort | 30.4 | 24 | 0.17 | 3 | NL cohort | 13.1 | 10 | 0.22 |
| 4 | Age+period+cohort | 9.4 | 20 | 0.98 | 4 | NL period | 21.0 | 4 | <0.01 |
| 4 | NL cohort | 11.6 | 10 | 0.31 | |||||
Abbreviation: NL=non-linear.
Best-fitting model on grounds of parsimony.
Degrees of freedom.
Figure 3Graphical representation of parameters from the full APC models of (A) female breast cancer, (B) cervical cancer and (C) ovarian cancer of Mumbai females aged 30–64 and diagnosed 1976–2005 on specifying a period slope of zero, thereby allowing a unique (but necessarily somewhat arbitrary) solution.