Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Boise, ID, United States

Johnson C.J.,Cancer Data Registry of Idaho | Hahn C.G.,Office of Epidemiology | Fink A.K.,ICF Macro | German R.R.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology | Year: 2012

Death certificates are the source for mortality statistics and are used to set public health goals. Accurate death certificates are vital in tracking outcomes of cancer. Deaths may be certified by physicians or other medical professionals, coroners, or medical examiners. Idaho is one of 3 states that participated in a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-funded study to assess the concordance between cancer-specific causes of death and primary cancer site among linked cancer registry/death certificate data. We investigated variability in the accuracy of cancer death certificates by characteristics of death certifiers, including certifier type (physician vs coroner), physician specialty, years of experience as death certifier, and number of deaths certified. This study showed significant differences by certifier type/physician specialty in the accuracy of cancer mortality measured by death certificates. Nonphysician coroners had lower accuracy rates compared with physicians. Although nonphysician coroners certified less than 5% of cancer deaths in Idaho, they were significantly less likely to match the primary site from the cancer registry. Results from this study may be useful in the future training of death certifiers to improve the accuracy of death certificates and cancer mortality statistics. Copyright © 2012 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Source


Watson M.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | Johnson C.J.,Cancer Data Registry of Idaho | Chen V.W.,Louisiana Tumor Registry | Thomas C.C.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | And 5 more authors.
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology | Year: 2011

Background: Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States. Melanoma skin cancer is particularly deadly; more than 8000 US residents die from it each year. Although recent reports suggest that melanoma incidence rates have been increasing, these apparent increases could be caused by an increase in reporting and/or screening, and by an actual increase in the occurrence of melanoma. Objective: In this report, we describe methods used in this supplement to assess the current burden of melanoma in the United States using data from two federal cancer surveillance programs: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Program of Cancer Registries and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. We also provide basic descriptive epidemiologic data about melanoma in the United States. Methods: Cancer incidence data from population-based cancer registries that participate in the CDC National Program of Cancer Registries and/or the NCI Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program covering 78% of the US population for 2004 to 2006 were used. Results: Over 45 thousand melanomas were diagnosed annually, with a rate of 19 cases per 100,000 persons. Limitations: Melanoma rates may vary because of differences in reporting, diagnosis, and screening. Conclusion: To our knowledge, the articles in this supplement constitute the first comprehensive examination of the overall burden of melanoma in the United States based on data from a majority of the US population. © 2011 by the American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Source


Weir H.K.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | Johnson C.J.,Cancer Data Registry of Idaho | Thompson T.D.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Cancer Causes and Control | Year: 2013

Purpose Different rules for registering multiple primary (MP) cancers are used by cancer registries throughout the world, making international data comparisons difficult. This study evaluates the effect of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) and International Association of Cancer Registries (IACR) MP rules on population-based cancer survival estimates. Methods Data from five US states and six metropolitan area cancer registries participating in the SEER Program were used to estimate age-standardized relative survival (RS%) for first cancers-only and all first cancers matching the selection criteria according to SEER and IACR MP rules for all cancer sites combined and for the top 25 cancer site groups among men and women. Results During 1995-2008, the percentage of MP cancers (all sites, both sexes) increased 25.4 % by using SEER rules (from 14.6 to 18.4 %) and 20.1 % by using IACR rules (from 13.2 to 15.8 %). More MP cancers were registered among females than among males, and SEER rules registered more MP cancers than IACR rules (15.8 vs. 14.4 % among males; 17.2 vs. 14.5 % among females). The top 3 cancer sites with the largest differences were melanoma (5.8 %), urinary bladder (3.5 %), and kidney and renal pelvis (2.9 %) among males, and breast (5.9 %), melanoma (3.9 %), and urinary bladder (3.4 %) among females. Fiveyear survival estimates (all sites combined) restricted to first primary cancers-only were higher than estimates by using first site-specific primaries (SEER or IACR rules), and for 11 of 21 sites among males and 11 of 23 sites among females. SEER estimates are comparable to IACR estimates for all site-specific cancers and marginally higher for all sites combined among females (RS 62.28 vs. 61.96 %). Conclusion Survival after diagnosis has improved for many leading cancers. However, cancer patients remain at risk of subsequent cancers. Survival estimates based on first cancers-only exclude a large and increasing number of MP cancers. To produce clinically and epidemiologically relevant and less biased cancer survival estimates, data on all cancers should be included in the analysis. The multiple primary rules (SEER or IACR) used to identify primary cancers do not affect survival estimates if all first cancers matching the selection criteria are used to produce sitespecific survival estimates © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013. Source


Allemani C.,London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine | Weir H.K.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | Carreira H.,London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine | Harewood R.,London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine | And 19 more authors.
The Lancet | Year: 2015

Background Worldwide data for cancer survival are scarce. We aimed to initiate worldwide surveillance of cancer survival by central analysis of population-based registry data, as a metric of the effectiveness of health systems, and to inform global policy on cancer control. Methods Individual tumour records were submitted by 279 population-based cancer registries in 67 countries for 25·7 million adults (age 15-99 years) and 75 000 children (age 0-14 years) diagnosed with cancer during 1995-2009 and followed up to Dec 31, 2009, or later. We looked at cancers of the stomach, colon, rectum, liver, lung, breast (women), cervix, ovary, and prostate in adults, and adult and childhood leukaemia. Standardised quality control procedures were applied; errors were corrected by the registry concerned. We estimated 5-year net survival, adjusted for background mortality in every country or region by age (single year), sex, and calendar year, and by race or ethnic origin in some countries. Estimates were age-standardised with the International Cancer Survival Standard weights. Findings 5-year survival from colon, rectal, and breast cancers has increased steadily in most developed countries. For patients diagnosed during 2005-09, survival for colon and rectal cancer reached 60% or more in 22 countries around the world; for breast cancer, 5-year survival rose to 85% or higher in 17 countries worldwide. Liver and lung cancer remain lethal in all nations: for both cancers, 5-year survival is below 20% everywhere in Europe, in the range 15-19% in North America, and as low as 7-9% in Mongolia and Thailand. Striking rises in 5-year survival from prostate cancer have occurred in many countries: survival rose by 10-20% between 1995-99 and 2005-09 in 22 countries in South America, Asia, and Europe, but survival still varies widely around the world, from less than 60% in Bulgaria and Thailand to 95% or more in Brazil, Puerto Rico, and the USA. For cervical cancer, national estimates of 5-year survival range from less than 50% to more than 70%; regional variations are much wider, and improvements between 1995-99 and 2005-09 have generally been slight. For women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2005-09, 5-year survival was 40% or higher only in Ecuador, the USA, and 17 countries in Asia and Europe. 5-year survival for stomach cancer in 2005-09 was high (54-58%) in Japan and South Korea, compared with less than 40% in other countries. By contrast, 5-year survival from adult leukaemia in Japan and South Korea (18-23%) is lower than in most other countries. 5-year survival from childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia is less than 60% in several countries, but as high as 90% in Canada and four European countries, which suggests major deficiencies in the management of a largely curable disease. Interpretation International comparison of survival trends reveals very wide differences that are likely to be attributable to differences in access to early diagnosis and optimum treatment. Continuous worldwide surveillance of cancer survival should become an indispensable source of information for cancer patients and researchers and a stimulus for politicians to improve health policy and health-care systems. Funding Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Toronto, Canada), Cancer Focus Northern Ireland (Belfast, UK), Cancer Institute New South Wales (Sydney, Australia), Cancer Research UK (London, UK), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta, GA, USA), Swiss Re (London, UK), Swiss Cancer Research foundation (Bern, Switzerland), Swiss Cancer League (Bern, Switzerland), and University of Kentucky (Lexington, KY, USA). © 2015 Allemani et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY. Source


Boscoe F.P.,New York State Cancer Registry | Johnson C.J.,Cancer Data Registry of Idaho | Sherman R.L.,University of Miami | Stinchcomb D.G.,Westat Inc. | And 2 more authors.
Cancer | Year: 2014

BACKGROUND The relationship between socioeconomic status and cancer incidence in the United States has not traditionally been a focus of population-based cancer surveillance systems. METHODS Nearly 3 million tumors diagnosed between 2005 and 2009 from 16 states plus Los Angeles were assigned into 1 of 4 groupings based on the poverty rate of the residential census tract at time of diagnosis. The sex-specific risk ratio of the highest-to-lowest poverty category was measured using Poisson regression, adjusting for age and race, for 39 cancer sites. RESULTS For all sites combined, there was a negligible association between cancer incidence and poverty; however, 32 of 39 cancer sites showed a significant association with poverty (14 positively associated and 18 negatively associated). Nineteen of these sites had monotonic increases or decreases in risk across all 4 poverty categories. The sites most strongly associated with higher poverty were Kaposi sarcoma, larynx, cervix, penis, and liver; those most strongly associated with lower poverty were melanoma, thyroid, other nonepithelial skin, and testis. Sites associated with higher poverty had lower incidence and higher mortality than those associated with lower poverty. CONCLUSIONS These findings demonstrate the importance and relevance of including a measure of socioeconomic status in national cancer surveillance. © 2014 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. Source

Discover hidden collaborations