| Literature DB >> 32179827 |
Zichao Li1,2, Haozhi Wu1,3, Xiaowei Yi4, Fangyu Tian5, Xiyang Zhang1, Haikun Zhou1,3, Biqing Liu1, Zhenhua Lu1, Jing Wang1, Dongbo Jiang1, Lei Shang6, Kun Yang7.
Abstract
For patients with cervical cancer, despite the incidence and mortality rates have been declining in recent years, due to its huge population base, cervical cancer has always been a serious public health problem. Our research placed emphasis on the indices greatly associated with overall area-specific social economic status, making up for the defects of traditional research which only pay attention to the situation of some specific disease or patients' individual social status. A total of 39160 women identified cervical cancer were concluded in our study from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 18 Program data between 1980 and 2014. With improving the area-specific social economic factors in recent years, the occurrence and prognosis of cervical cancer showed different variation patterns respectively. Some states like California and Georgia for their better economic status and more healthcare investment by local medical institution, population there showed a lower prevalence, incidence, more timely diagnosis, effective treatment, and better prognosis. According to our study, we aimed to give a scientific interpretation on how the area-specific social economic factors affect the disease situation at the macro level and help local medical institution make advisable decisions for controlling cervical cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32179827 PMCID: PMC7075972 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-61660-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Age-standardized cervical cancer incidence rates among women ages 20+ years in 9 states during 1980–2014.
| 1980–1984 | 1985–1989 | 1990–1994 | 1995–1999 | 2000–2004 | 2005–2009 | 2010–2014 | 1980–2014 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | Rate | Count | Rate | Count | Rate | Count | Rate | Count | Rate | Count | Rate | Count | Rate | Count | Rate | Rate | ||
| Race | Caucasians | 4,393 | 5.2 | 4,468 | 5.0 | 4,664 | 4.8 | 4,375 | 4.2 | 3,853 | 3.6 | 3,646 | 3.4 | 3,669 | 3.3 | 29,068 | 4.1 | <0.001 |
| African Americans | 916 | 12.3 | 886 | 10.2 | 867 | 8.5 | 909 | 7.7 | 806 | 6.1 | 739 | 4.9 | 715 | 4.2 | 5,838 | 7.0 | ||
| Others | 407 | 6.7 | 519 | 6.9 | 557 | 5.8 | 672 | 5.7 | 607 | 4.2 | 576 | 3.4 | 673 | 3.3 | 4,011 | 4.6 | ||
| Ages | 20–39 | 1,716 | 5.0 | 1,887 | 5.0 | 1,946 | 4.8 | 1,844 | 4.5 | 1,486 | 3.8 | 1,382 | 3.7 | 1,343 | 3.5 | 11,604 | 4.3 | <0.001 |
| 40–59 | 2,002 | 9.0 | 2,073 | 8.8 | 2,295 | 8.3 | 2,539 | 7.8 | 2,366 | 6.4 | 2,265 | 5.7 | 2,398 | 6.0 | 15,938 | 7.1 | ||
| 60+ | 2,002 | 12.4 | 1,938 | 10.9 | 1,875 | 9.9 | 1,624 | 8.2 | 1,444 | 6.9 | 1,353 | 5.8 | 1,382 | 5.0 | 11,618 | 8.0 | ||
| Histology | Squamous cell carcinoma | 2,699 | 2.8 | 2,590 | 2.5 | 2,471 | 2.1 | 2,436 | 1.9 | 2,297 | 1.7 | 2,340 | 1.6 | 2,411 | 1.6 | 17,244 | 2.0 | <0.001 |
| Adenocarcinoma | 480 | 0.5 | 650 | 0.6 | 771 | 0.7 | 797 | 0.6 | 726 | 0.5 | 716 | 0.5 | 827 | 0.6 | 4,967 | 0.6 | ||
| Others | 1,718 | 1.7 | 1,795 | 1.7 | 1,912 | 1.6 | 1,747 | 1.4 | 1,299 | 1.0 | 969 | 0.7 | 903 | 0.6 | 10,343 | 1.2 | ||
| Surgery | Performed | 2,765 | 3.9 | 3,301 | 4.2 | 3,962 | 4.6 | 4,100 | 4.4 | 3,347 | 3.4 | 2,925 | 2.9 | 2,857 | 2.7 | 23,257 | 3.7 | <0.001 |
| Not recommended | 2,426 | 3.6 | 2,304 | 3.2 | 2,079 | 2.6 | 1,815 | 2.1 | 1,897 | 2 | 1,988 | 1.9 | 2,185 | 2 | 14,694 | 2.4 | ||
| Stage | Stages I | 1,375 | 1.8 | 3,355 | 3.9 | 3,428 | 3.7 | 2,266 | 2.3 | 2,419 | 2.4 | 2,371 | 2.3 | 10,424 | 1.6 | <0.001 | ||
| Stages II | 372 | 0.5 | 801 | 1 | 776 | 0.9 | 606 | 0.6 | 651 | 0.6 | 607 | 0.5 | 2,555 | 0.4 | ||||
| Stages III | 317 | 0.4 | 873 | 1.1 | 807 | 0.9 | 701 | 0.7 | 884 | 0.9 | 1,004 | 0.9 | 2,698 | 0.4 | ||||
| Stages IV | 198 | 0.3 | 535 | 0.7 | 498 | 0.6 | 484 | 0.5 | 591 | 0.6 | 776 | 0.7 | 1,715 | 0.3 | ||||
| Grade | Grade I | 402 | 0.6 | 392 | 0.5 | 414 | 0.5 | 508 | 0.6 | 463 | 0.5 | 455 | 0.5 | 549 | 0.5 | 3,183 | 0.5 | <0.001 |
| Grade II | 1056.00 | 1.50 | 1189.00 | 1.60 | 1357.00 | 1.60 | 1470.00 | 1.60 | 1465.00 | 1.50 | 1,474 | 1.5 | 1,603 | 1.5 | 9,614 | 1.5 | ||
| Grade III | 1,074 | 1.60 | 1,317 | 1.80 | 1,504 | 1.80 | 1,504 | 1.70 | 1,409 | 1.50 | 1,384 | 1.4 | 1,375 | 1.3 | 9,567 | 1.5 | ||
| Grade IV | 129.00 | 0.20 | 106.00 | 0.10 | 163.00 | 0.20 | 140.00 | 0.20 | 134.00 | 0.10 | 122 | 0.1 | 107 | 0.1 | 901 | 0.1 | ||
| State | California | 887 | 5.6 | 948 | 5.5 | 976 | 5.2 | 935 | 4.6 | 737 | 3.4 | 672 | 3.0 | 767 | 3.2 | 5,922 | 4.2 | <0.001 |
| Connecticut | 792 | 5.2 | 808 | 5.1 | 792 | 4.7 | 802 | 4.6 | 655 | 3.6 | 594 | 3.2 | 653 | 3.5 | 5,096 | 4.2 | ||
| Georgia | 534 | 7.3 | 550 | 6.3 | 599 | 5.8 | 701 | 5.8 | 616 | 4.5 | 607 | 4.1 | 613 | 3.6 | 4,220 | 5.0 | ||
| Michigan | 1,252 | 7.2 | 1,171 | 6.5 | 1,140 | 5.9 | 1,114 | 5.6 | 962 | 4.7 | 861 | 4.3 | 745 | 3.7 | 7,245 | 5.3 | ||
| Hawaii | 211 | 5.1 | 261 | 5.5 | 297 | 5.3 | 304 | 5.1 | 265 | 4.2 | 265 | 4.0 | 261 | 3.7 | 1,864 | 4.5 | ||
| Iowa | 796 | 6.0 | 720 | 5.4 | 725 | 5.2 | 676 | 4.7 | 573 | 3.9 | 527 | 3.5 | 538 | 3.6 | 4,555 | 4.5 | ||
| New mexico | 382 | 6.8 | 396 | 6.1 | 444 | 6.1 | 400 | 4.8 | 415 | 4.6 | 386 | 4.0 | 389 | 3.8 | 2,812 | 4.9 | ||
| Washington | 650 | 5.0 | 775 | 5.2 | 806 | 4.6 | 782 | 3.9 | 778 | 3.7 | 803 | 3.5 | 848 | 3.5 | 5,442 | 4.1 | ||
| Utah | 234 | 4.2 | 281 | 4.4 | 353 | 4.8 | 314 | 3.6 | 305 | 3.2 | 298 | 2.7 | 298 | 2.7 | 2,101 | 3.5 | ||
Source: SEER-NLMS Record Linkage Study. Based on the registered population among 9 SEER Stares (California, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico, Utah and Washington) during 1980–2014.
aRates were per 100000 and age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population by the direct method.
bRates were estimated by Join point regression models.
cWilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to identify the different variation of incidence among different races, age groups, histology types, surgery performed status and states over time; Linear-by-Linear association tests were used to identify the different variation of incidence among tumor differentiated stages and grades over time.
Figure 1The differences of variation tendency for age-adjusted incidence rates among patients registered in 9 states were showed in histogram. The geographic heat map was colored according to the GDP rank status in the recent years.
Figure 2The histogram showed trends of age-adjusted 3-year cause specific survival rates disparity ratios by registered region and race/ethnicity between 1980 and 2014 for registered population. The geographic heat map was colored according to the GDP rank status in the recent years.
Figure 3The variation tendency of age-adjusted 3-year CSS rates of registered patients with cervical cancer during 1980–2014 according to following variables: race/ethnicity, ages at diagnosis, tumor stage, tumor grade, tumor histology, surgery performed status and registered states.
Figure 4Distribution of cervical cancer cases registered in 9 states according to the mentioned covariates: tumor grade (A), tumor stage (B) and surgery performed status (C) by years during 1980–2014. (A) The percent of cervical cancer patients with tumor at each grade by year. Distribution of cervical cases of 9 registered states according to tumor grades from 1980–2014. (B) The percent of cervical cancer patients with tumor at each stage by year. Distribution of cervical cases of 9 registered states according to tumor stages from 1980–2014. (C) The percent of surgery performed status among cervical cancer cases by year. Distribution of cervical cases of 9 registered states according to surgery performed status from 1980–2014.