| Literature DB >> 27043865 |
Krithiga Shridhar1, Preetha Rajaraman2, Shravani Koyande3, Purvish M Parikh4, Pankaj Chaturvedi5, Preet K Dhillon6, Rajesh P Dikshit7.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite tobacco control and health promotion efforts, the incidence rates of mouth cancer are increasing across most regions in India. Analysing the influence of age, time period and birth cohort on these secular trends can point towards underlying factors and help identify high-risk populations for improved cancer control programmes.Entities:
Keywords: Age standardized rate; Age-period-cohort analysis; Age-specific rate; Cancer registry; Cancer trend; India; Mouth cancer; Mumbai; Net drift; Risk factors
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27043865 PMCID: PMC4911594 DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2016.03.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Epidemiol ISSN: 1877-7821 Impact factor: 2.984
Mouth cancer in Mumbai 1995–2009: person-years at risk, incidence cases, age-standardized rates, overall linear trends for men and women (aged 25–74).
| Calendar period | MEN (aged 25–74 yrs) | WOMEN (aged 25–74) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of cases | Person-years | ASR | Number of cases | Person-yearsa (millions) | ASR | |
| 1995–99 | 229.6 | 3.1 | 10.3 | 120.2 | 2.5 | 6.9 |
| 2000–04 | 322 | 3.4 | 12.8 | 144.2 | 2.7 | 7.2 |
| 2005–09 | 395.4 | 3.9 | 13.4 | 156.4 | 3.1 | 6.1 |
| Estimated | 2.7 (1.9 to 3.4); p < 0.0001 | −0.01 (−0.02 to −0.002); p = 0.03 | ||||
Mean annual numbers.
Age-standardized rate per 100,000 (world standard, Segi 1960).
Estimated annual percentage change obtained from log-linear model, with 95% confidence interval (net drift).
Fig. 1Observed rates of mouth cancer in men aged 25–74 and diagnosed between 1995 and 2009. Rates are plotted vs. calendar period and birth cohort for each age at diagnosis group.
Mouth cancer in Mumbai 1995–2009, men aged 25–74. Analysis of deviance for nested APC models.
| Model No. | Model description | Goodness-of-fit | Model Comparison | Effect Tested | Difference between models | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| df | Residual Deviance | p | df | Deviance | p | ||||
| 0 | Age | 9 | 149.8 | <0.0001 | |||||
| 1 | Age + drift | 10 | 122.3 | <0.0001 | 1 vs. 0 | Drift | 1 | 27.5 | <0.0001 |
| 2 | Age + period | 11 | 118.8 | <0.0001 | 2 vs.1 | Non-linear period | 1 | 3.5 | 0.0080 |
| 3 | Age + cohort | 20 | 107.7 | <0.0001 | 3 vs.1 | Non-linear cohort | 10 | 14.6 | 0.0012 |
| 4 | Age+ period + cohort | 21 | 103.2 | <0.0001 | 4 vs. 3 | Non-linear period | 1 | 4.5 | 0.002 |
| 4 vs.2 | Non-linear cohort | 10 | 15.6 | 0.0005 | |||||
Degrees of freedom.
Best-fitting APC model on the grounds of significant non-linear period and cohort effects.
Period (cohort) adjusted for non-linear cohort (period).
Mouth cancer in Mumbai 1995–2009, women aged 25–74. Analysis of deviance for nested APC models.
| Model No. | Model description | Goodness-of-fit | Model Comparison | Effect Tested | Difference between models | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| df | Residual Deviance | p(>∣chi∣) | df | Deviance | p(>∣chi∣) | ||||
| 0 | Age | 9 | 100.3 | <0.0001 | |||||
| 1 | Age + drift | 10 | 97.9 | <0.0001 | 0 vs. 1 | Drift | 1 | 2.4 | 0.03 |
| 2 | Age + period | 11 | 96.1 | <0.0001 | 2 vs.1 | Non-linear period | 1 | 1.8 | 0.06 |
| 3 | Age + cohort | 20 | 92.2 | <0.0001 | 3 vs.1 | Non-linear cohort | 10 | 5.7 | 0.32 |
| 4 | Age+ period + cohort | 21 | 90.1 | <0.0001 | 4 vs. 3 | Non-linear period | 1 | 2.1 | 0.94 |
| 4 vs.2 | Non-linear cohort | 10 | 6.0 | 0.29 | |||||
Degrees of freedom.
Best-fitting APC model on the grounds of parsimony.
Period (cohort) adjusted for non-linear cohort (period).
Fig. 2Observed rates of mouth cancer in women aged 25–74 and diagnosed between 1995 and 2009. Rates are plotted vs. calendar period and birth cohort for each age at diagnosis group.