OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study was to calculate the proportion of cancers in Canada attributable to tobacco smoking (ts), alcohol use (au), excess weight (ew), and physical inactivity (pia); to explore variation in the proportions of those risk factors (rfs) over time by sex and province; to estimate the economic burden of cancer attributable to the 4 rfs; and to calculate the potential reduction in cancers and economic burden if all provinces achieved rf prevalence rates equivalent to the best in Canada. METHODS: We used a previously developed approach based on population-attributable fractions (pafs) to estimate the cancer-related economic burden associated with the four rfs. Sex-specific relative risk and age- and sex-specific prevalence data were used in the modelling. The economic burden was adjusted for potential double counting of cases and costs. RESULTS: In Canada, 27.7% of incident cancer cases [95% confidence interval (ci): 22.6% to 32.9%] in 2013 [47,000 of 170,000 (95% ci: 38,400-55,900)] were attributable to the four rfs: ts, 15.2% (95% ci: 13.7% to 16.9%); ew, 5.1% (95% ci: 3.8% to 6.4%); au, 3.9% (95% ci: 2.4% to 5.3%); and pia, 3.5% (95% ci: 2.7% to 4.3%). The annual economic burden attributable to the 47,000 total cancers was $9.6 billion (95% ci: $7.8 billion to $11.3 billion): consisting of $1.7 billion in direct and $8.0 billion in indirect costs. Applying the lowest rf rates to each province would result in an annual reduction of 6204 cancers (13.2% of the potentially avoidable cancers) and a reduction in economic burden of $1.2 billion. CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial reductions in the prevalence and intensity of ts, ts remains the dominant risk factor from the perspective of cancer prevention in Canada, although ew and au are becoming increasingly important rfs.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study was to calculate the proportion of cancers in Canada attributable to tobacco smoking (ts), alcohol use (au), excess weight (ew), and physical inactivity (pia); to explore variation in the proportions of those risk factors (rfs) over time by sex and province; to estimate the economic burden of cancer attributable to the 4 rfs; and to calculate the potential reduction in cancers and economic burden if all provinces achieved rf prevalence rates equivalent to the best in Canada. METHODS: We used a previously developed approach based on population-attributable fractions (pafs) to estimate the cancer-related economic burden associated with the four rfs. Sex-specific relative risk and age- and sex-specific prevalence data were used in the modelling. The economic burden was adjusted for potential double counting of cases and costs. RESULTS: In Canada, 27.7% of incident cancer cases [95% confidence interval (ci): 22.6% to 32.9%] in 2013 [47,000 of 170,000 (95% ci: 38,400-55,900)] were attributable to the four rfs: ts, 15.2% (95% ci: 13.7% to 16.9%); ew, 5.1% (95% ci: 3.8% to 6.4%); au, 3.9% (95% ci: 2.4% to 5.3%); and pia, 3.5% (95% ci: 2.7% to 4.3%). The annual economic burden attributable to the 47,000 total cancers was $9.6 billion (95% ci: $7.8 billion to $11.3 billion): consisting of $1.7 billion in direct and $8.0 billion in indirect costs. Applying the lowest rf rates to each province would result in an annual reduction of 6204 cancers (13.2% of the potentially avoidable cancers) and a reduction in economic burden of $1.2 billion. CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial reductions in the prevalence and intensity of ts, ts remains the dominant risk factor from the perspective of cancer prevention in Canada, although ew and au are becoming increasingly important rfs.
Authors: Aaron M White; Courtney L Kraus; Julie D Flom; Lori A Kestenbaum; Jamie R Mitchell; Kunal Shah; H Scott Swartzwelder Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Goodarz Danaei; Stephen Vander Hoorn; Alan D Lopez; Christopher J L Murray; Majid Ezzati Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-11-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: V Bagnardi; M Rota; E Botteri; I Tramacere; F Islami; V Fedirko; L Scotti; M Jenab; F Turati; E Pasquali; C Pelucchi; R Bellocco; E Negri; G Corrao; J Rehm; P Boffetta; C La Vecchia Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-08-21 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: John R Goffin; William M Flanagan; Anthony B Miller; Natalie R Fitzgerald; Saima Memon; Michael C Wolfson; William K Evans Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Claire de Oliveira; Karen E Bremner; Reka Pataky; Nadia Gunraj; Kelvin Chan; Stuart Peacock; Murray D Krahn Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2013-01-16
Authors: Claire de Oliveira; Karen E Bremner; Reka Pataky; Nadia Gunraj; Mahbubul Haq; Kelvin Chan; Winson Y Cheung; Jeffrey S Hoch; Stuart Peacock; Murray D Krahn Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2013-12-09
Authors: N Abdelmutti; J Brual; J Papadakos; S Fathima; D Goldstein; L Eng; T Papadakos; G Liu; J Jones; M Giuliani Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Yibing Ruan; Abbey E Poirier; Joy Pader; Keiko Asakawa; Chaohui Lu; Saima Memon; Anthony B Miller; Stephen D Walter; Paul J Villeneuve; Will D King; Karena D Volesky; Leah Smith; Prithwish De; Christine M Friedenreich; Darren R Brenner Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 2021-05-25
Authors: Nadia Minian; Wayne K deRuiter; Mathangee Lingam; Tricia Corrin; Rosa Dragonetti; Heather Manson; Valerie H Taylor; Laurie Zawertailo; Arezoo Ebnahmady; Osnat C Melamed; Terri Rodak; Margaret Hahn; Peter Selby Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2018-03-01
Authors: Nadia Minian; Aliya Noormohamed; Mathangee Lingam; Laurie Zawertailo; Bernard Le Foll; Jürgen Rehm; Norman Giesbrecht; Andriy V Samokhvalov; Dolly Baliunas; Peter Selby Journal: Addict Sci Clin Pract Date: 2021-03-16