Michael Shayne Gallaway1, Andrew S Berens2, Mary C Puckett3, Stephanie Foster2. 1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, MS F76, Atlanta, GA, 30341, USA. mgallaway@cdc.gov. 2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Geospatial Research, Analysis, and Services Program (GRASP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, MS F76, Atlanta, GA, 30341, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Lung cancer is the leading cause of U.S. cancer deaths and radon is the second leading risk factor for lung cancer. By better understanding geologic variations of radon production in states, comprehensive cancer control efforts could be improved. The study purpose was to assess states with the greatest potential for elevated radon and the likelihood of radon-related actions in National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) awardee cancer plans. METHODS: Two state-level variables were derived to approximate potential for elevated radon using the Environmental Protection Agency county map and the 2015 U.S. Census. The association between radon potential and inclusion of radon activity within cancer plans was evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Fifty-one percent of cancer plans recognized an association between radon and cancer risk, and included measurable radon activities. Most states with high radon potential included radon activity in cancer plans. Both measures of radon potential were significantly associated with NCCCP cancer plans including radon activity. CONCLUSIONS: Geospatial analyses help to prioritize radon-related lung cancer activities. In areas with high potential for radon exposure, increasing knowledge about potential for radon exposure may result in increased radon testing, mitigation, or other radon reducing strategies, and ultimately reduction of lung cancer deaths.
PURPOSE:Lung cancer is the leading cause of U.S. cancer deaths and radon is the second leading risk factor for lung cancer. By better understanding geologic variations of radon production in states, comprehensive cancer control efforts could be improved. The study purpose was to assess states with the greatest potential for elevated radon and the likelihood of radon-related actions in National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) awardee cancer plans. METHODS: Two state-level variables were derived to approximate potential for elevated radon using the Environmental Protection Agency county map and the 2015 U.S. Census. The association between radon potential and inclusion of radon activity within cancer plans was evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Fifty-one percent of cancer plans recognized an association between radon and cancer risk, and included measurable radon activities. Most states with high radon potential included radon activity in cancer plans. Both measures of radon potential were significantly associated with NCCCP cancer plans including radon activity. CONCLUSIONS: Geospatial analyses help to prioritize radon-related lung cancer activities. In areas with high potential for radon exposure, increasing knowledge about potential for radon exposure may result in increased radon testing, mitigation, or other radon reducing strategies, and ultimately reduction of lung cancer deaths.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer; Carcinogens; Comprehensive cancer control; Environmental health; Lung neoplasms; Neoplasms; Population groups; Radon
Authors: S Darby; D Hill; A Auvinen; J M Barros-Dios; H Baysson; F Bochicchio; H Deo; R Falk; F Forastiere; M Hakama; I Heid; L Kreienbrock; M Kreuzer; F Lagarde; I Mäkeläinen; C Muirhead; W Oberaigner; G Pershagen; A Ruano-Ravina; E Ruosteenoja; A Schaffrath Rosario; M Tirmarche; L Tomásek; E Whitley; H-E Wichmann; R Doll Journal: BMJ Date: 2004-12-21
Authors: Daniel Krewski; Jay H Lubin; Jan M Zielinski; Michael Alavanja; Vanessa S Catalan; R William Field; Judith B Klotz; Ernest G Létourneau; Charles F Lynch; Joseph I Lyon; Dale P Sandler; Janet B Schoenberg; Daniel J Steck; Jan A Stolwijk; Clarice Weinberg; Homer B Wilcox Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Jonathan M Samet; Erika Avila-Tang; Paolo Boffetta; Lindsay M Hannan; Susan Olivo-Marston; Michael J Thun; Charles M Rudin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-09-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jay H Lubin; Zuo Yuan Wang; John D Boice; Zhao Yi Xu; William J Blot; Long De Wang; Ruth A Kleinerman Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Mary Elizabeth O'Neil; S Jane Henley; Elizabeth A Rohan; Taylor D Ellington; M Shayne Gallaway Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 17.586