Mariana C Stern1,2, Juanjuan Zhang3,4, Eunjung Lee3,5, Dennis Deapen3,5,4, Lihua Liu3,4. 1. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine of USC, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. marianas@usc.edu. 2. Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, 1441 Eastlake Avenue, Room 5421A, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA. marianas@usc.edu. 3. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine of USC, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Los Angeles Cancer Surveillance Program, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, 1441 Eastlake Avenue, Room 5421A, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In California, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer in Latinos. Using data from the California Cancer Registry, we investigated demographic and clinical characteristics of 36,133 Latinos with CRC living in California during 1995-2011 taking into account subpopulations defined by country of origin. METHODS: Cases were defined as Latino according to the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries Hispanic Identification Algorithm, which was also used to group cases by country of origin: Mexico (9,678, 27 %), Central or South America (2,636, 7 %), Cuban (558, 2 %), Puerto Rico (295, 1 %), and other or unknown origin (22,966, 64 %; Other/NOS). 174,710 non-Hispanic white (NHW) CRC cases were included for comparison purposes. Annual age-adjusted incidence rates (AAIR) and proportional incidence ratios (PIRs) were calculated. RESULTS: Differences were observed for age at diagnosis, sex distribution, socioeconomic status (SES), nativity (US born vs. foreign born), stage, and tumor localization across Latino subpopulations and compared to NHW. Mexican Latinos had the lowest AAIR and Cuban Latinos had the highest. PIRs adjusted for age, SES, and nativity showed an excess of CRC males and female cases from Cuba, female cases from Puerto Rico and reduced number of female cases from Mexico. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in cancer incidence patterns and tumor characteristics were observed among Latino subpopulations in California. These disparities may reflect differences in cancer determinants among Latinos; therefore, given that country of origin information is unavailable for a large proportion of these patients, greater efforts to collect these data are warranted.
PURPOSE: In California, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer in Latinos. Using data from the California Cancer Registry, we investigated demographic and clinical characteristics of 36,133 Latinos with CRC living in California during 1995-2011 taking into account subpopulations defined by country of origin. METHODS: Cases were defined as Latino according to the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries Hispanic Identification Algorithm, which was also used to group cases by country of origin: Mexico (9,678, 27 %), Central or South America (2,636, 7 %), Cuban (558, 2 %), Puerto Rico (295, 1 %), and other or unknown origin (22,966, 64 %; Other/NOS). 174,710 non-Hispanic white (NHW) CRC cases were included for comparison purposes. Annual age-adjusted incidence rates (AAIR) and proportional incidence ratios (PIRs) were calculated. RESULTS: Differences were observed for age at diagnosis, sex distribution, socioeconomic status (SES), nativity (US born vs. foreign born), stage, and tumor localization across Latino subpopulations and compared to NHW. Mexican Latinos had the lowest AAIR and Cuban Latinos had the highest. PIRs adjusted for age, SES, and nativity showed an excess of CRC males and female cases from Cuba, female cases from Puerto Rico and reduced number of female cases from Mexico. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in cancer incidence patterns and tumor characteristics were observed among Latino subpopulations in California. These disparities may reflect differences in cancer determinants among Latinos; therefore, given that country of origin information is unavailable for a large proportion of these patients, greater efforts to collect these data are warranted.
Authors: Scarlett Lin Gomez; Thu Quach; Pamela L Horn-Ross; Jane T Pham; Myles Cockburn; Ellen T Chang; Theresa H M Keegan; Sally L Glaser; Christina A Clarke Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-02-10 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Paulo S Pinheiro; Recinda L Sherman; Edward J Trapido; Lora E Fleming; Youjie Huang; Orlando Gomez-Marin; David Lee Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Luceta McRoy; Josué Epané; Zo Ramamonjiarivelo; Ferhat Zengul; Robert Weech-Maldonado; George Rust Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2021-10-27 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Jessica L Petrick; Scott P Kelly; Sean F Altekruse; Katherine A McGlynn; Philip S Rosenberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Charité N Ricker; Diana L Hanna; Cheng Peng; Nathalie T Nguyen; Mariana C Stern; Stephanie L Schmit; Greg E Idos; Ravi Patel; Steven Tsai; Veronica Ramirez; Sonia Lin; Vinay Shamasunadara; Afsaneh Barzi; Heinz-Josef Lenz; Jane C Figueiredo Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Maria Gonzalez-Pons; Mariela Torres; Javier Perez; Anneliese Velez; Jean Pierre Betancourt; Lorena Marcano; Marievelisse Soto-Salgado; Marcia Cruz-Correa Journal: Cancer Clin Oncol Date: 2016-08-24
Authors: Humberto Parada; Andrew H Vu; Paulo S Pinheiro; Caroline A Thompson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Mariana C Stern; Laura Fejerman; Rina Das; V Wendy Setiawan; Marcia R Cruz-Correa; Eliseo J Perez-Stable; Jane C Figueiredo Journal: Curr Epidemiol Rep Date: 2016-06-30