Abstract A117: Area deprivation index and rurality in relation to lung cancer prevalence and mortality in a rural state

Author(s):  
Kathleen M Fairfield ◽  
Adam Black ◽  
Erika Ziller ◽  
Kimberly Murray ◽  
Lee Lucas ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen M Fairfield ◽  
Adam W Black ◽  
Erika C Ziller ◽  
Kimberly Murray ◽  
F Lee Lucas ◽  
...  

Abstract Background We sought to describe lung cancer prevalence and mortality in relation to socioeconomic deprivation and rurality. Methods We conducted a population-based cross-sectional analysis of prevalent lung cancers from a statewide all-payer claims dataset from 2012 to 2016, lung cancer deaths in Maine from the state death registry from 2012 to 2016, rurality, and area deprivation index (ADI), a geographic area-based measure of socioeconomic deprivation. Analyses examined rate ratios for lung cancer prevalence and mortality according to rurality (small and isolated rural, large rural, or urban) and ADI (quintiles, with highest reflecting the most deprivation) and after adjusting for age, sex, and area-level smoking rates as determined by the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Results Among 1 223 006 adults aged 20 years and older during the 5-year observation period, 8297 received lung cancer care, and 4616 died. Lung cancer prevalence and mortality were positively associated with increasing rurality, but these associations did not persist after adjusting for age, sex, and smoking rates. Lung cancer prevalence and mortality were positively associated with increasing ADI in models adjusted for age, sex, and smoking rates (prevalence rate ratio for ADI quintile 5 compared with quintile 1 = 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] =1.30 to 1.54) and mortality rate ratio = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.41 to 1.79). Conclusion Socioeconomic deprivation, but not rurality, was associated with higher lung cancer prevalence and mortality. Interventions should target populations with socioeconomic deprivation, rather than rurality per se, and aim to reduce lung cancer risk via tobacco treatment and control interventions and to improve patient access to lung cancer prevention, screening, and treatment services.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1420326X2110306
Author(s):  
Xiaofang Zhang ◽  
Lei Rao ◽  
Qinghong Liu ◽  
Qin Yang

Lung cancer is one of the most common cancers and cooking oil fumes (COF) are considered as the potential dangerous contributing factors. This study, a meta-analysis was conducted to analyse the correlation between exposure to COF and risk of lung cancer. Literature from 1980 to 2020 were searched and 29 studies were selected for analysis. Results showed that population exposed to COF had significant differences in lung cancer prevalence (P < 0.05). The odds ratio (OR) values of different periods (before 2000, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020) were significantly different. Using ventilation equipment had the OR of 0.54. Liao cuisine, Fujian cuisine, Shanghai cuisine, Jingdong cuisine and Shaanxi cuisine had the ORs (95% confidence interval) of 1.91 (1.62, 2.25), 2.38 (1.80, 3.16), 1.56 (1.29, 1.89), 2.58 (1.63, 4.09) and 1.57 (1.16, 2.11), respectively. These results revealed that exposure to COF could increase the risk of lung cancer, but the risk was gradually reduced with the changes of the times and the use of ventilation equipment. Different cooking methods in different regions caused different risks of lung cancer. The risk of lung cancer caused by COF mainly produced by deep-frying, quick-frying, stir-frying and pan-frying is higher than in other methods.


2022 ◽  
Vol 226 (1) ◽  
pp. S38-S39
Author(s):  
Francis M. Hacker ◽  
Jaclyn M. Phillips ◽  
Lara S. Lemon ◽  
Aislin DeFilippo ◽  
Hyagriv Simhan

Lung Cancer ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.M. Ruppert ◽  
U. Lerolle ◽  
M.F. Carette ◽  
A. Lavole ◽  
A. Khalil ◽  
...  

Antibiotics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 643
Author(s):  
Gábor Ternák ◽  
Károly Berényi ◽  
András Sümegi ◽  
Ágnes Szenczi ◽  
Barbara Fodor ◽  
...  

The possible role of the altered intestinal microbiome in the development of malignancies has been raised recently in several publications. Among external factors, antibiotics are considered to be the most important agent capable of producing dysbiosis in the gut flora, either temporally or permanently. The human microbiome has several beneficial effects in terms of maintaining appropriate human health, but its alteration has been implicated in the development of many illnesses. Our basic aim was to explore a possible relationship between the consumption of different antibiotic classes and the incidence of the most common cancer types (male, female) in European countries. A database of the average, yearly antibiotic consumption (1997–2018) has been developed and the consumption figures were compared to the eight, most frequent cancer incidence calculated for 2018 in 30 European countries. Pearson correlation has indicated different degrees of positive (supportive) and negative (inhibitor) significant associations between antibiotic consumption figures and cancer prevalence. It has been observed that certain antibiotic classes with positive correlation probably augment the incidence of certain cancer types, while others, with negative correlation, may show some inhibitory effect. The relatively higher or lower consumption pattern of different classes of antibiotics could be related to certain cancer prevalence figures in different European countries. Our results indicated that countries with relatively high consumption of narrow-spectrum penicillin (J01CE, J01CF) and tetracycline (J01A), like certain Scandinavian countries, showed a higher incidence of female colorectal cancer, female lung cancer, melanoma, breast, prostate and uterus corpus cancer. Countries with relatively higher consumption of broad-spectrum penicillin (J01CA, J01CR) and some broad-spectrum antibiotics (J01D, J01F, J01M), like Greece, Hungary, Slovakia, France, etc. showed a higher incidence rate of male lung cancer and male bladder cancer. The higher incidence rate of different cancer types showed association with the higher consumption of antibiotics with “augmenting” properties and with less consumption of antibiotics with “inhibitory” properties.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 519-530
Author(s):  
Christopher Kitchen ◽  
◽  
Elham Hatef ◽  
Hsien Yen Chang ◽  
Jonathan P Weiner ◽  
...  

<abstract><sec> <title>Background</title> <p>The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted communities differentially, with poorer and minority populations being more adversely affected. Prior rural health research suggests such disparities may be exacerbated during the pandemic and in remote parts of the U.S.</p> </sec><sec> <title>Objectives</title> <p>To understand the spread and impact of COVID-19 across the U.S., county level data for confirmed cases of COVID-19 were examined by Area Deprivation Index (ADI) and Metropolitan vs. Nonmetropolitan designations from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). These designations were the basis for making comparisons between Urban and Rural jurisdictions.</p> </sec><sec> <title>Method</title> <p>Kendall's Tau-B was used to compare effect sizes between jurisdictions on select ADI composites and well researched social determinants of health (SDH). Spearman coefficients and stratified Poisson modeling was used to explore the association between ADI and COVID-19 prevalence in the context of county designation.</p> </sec><sec> <title>Results</title> <p>Results show that the relationship between area deprivation and COVID-19 prevalence was positive and higher for rural counties, when compared to urban ones. Family income, property value and educational attainment were among the ADI component measures most correlated with prevalence, but this too differed between county type.</p> </sec><sec> <title>Conclusions</title> <p>Though most Americans live in Metropolitan Areas, rural communities were found to be associated with a stronger relationship between deprivation and COVID-19 prevalence. Models predicting COVID-19 prevalence by ADI and county type reinforced this observation and may inform health policy decisions.</p> </sec></abstract>


2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryam Hadipour ◽  
HosseinMolavi Vardanjani ◽  
Masoud Zeinali ◽  
Samera Radmerikhi

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document