Search

Background: As social and built environment factors have been shown to be associated with physical activity, dietary patterns, and obesity in the general population, they likely also influence these health behaviors among cancer survivors and thereby impact survivorship outcomes.Methods: Enhancing the rich, individual-level survey and medical record data from 4,505 breast cancer survivors in the Pathways Study, a prospective cohort drawn from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, we geocoded baseline residential addresses and appended social and built environment data. With multinomial logistic models, we examined associations between neighborhood characteristics and body mass index and whether neighborhood factors explained racial/ethnic/nativity disparities in overweight/obesity.Results: Low neighborhood socioeconomic status, high minority composition, high traffic density, high prevalence of commuting by car, and a higher number of fast food restaurants were independently associated with higher odds of overweight or obesity. The higher odds of overweight among African Americans, U.S.-born Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders, and foreign-born Hispanics and the higher odds of obesity among African Americans and U.S.-born Hispanics, compared with non-Hispanic whites, remained significant, although somewhat attenuated, when accounting for social and built environment features.Conclusions: Addressing aspects of neighborhood environments may help breast cancer survivors maintain a healthy body weight.Impact: Further research in this area, such as incorporating data on individuals' perceptions and use of their neighborhood environments, is needed to ultimately inform multilevel interventions that would ameliorate such disparities and improve outcomes for breast cancer survivors, regardless of their social status (e.g., race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, nativity). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(4); 505-15. ©2017 AACRSee all the articles in this CEBP Focus section, "Geospatial Approaches to Cancer Control and Population Sciences."

BackgroundIt has been observed that married cancer patients have lower mortality rates than unmarried patients, but data for different racial/ethnic groups are scarce. The authors examined the risk of overall mortality associated with marital status across racial/ethnic groups and sex in data from the California Cancer Registry.MethodsCalifornia Cancer Registry data for all first primary invasive cancers diagnosed from 2000 through 2009 for the 10 most common sites of cancer-related death for non-Hispanic whites (NHWs), blacks, Asians/Pacific Islanders (APIs), and Hispanics were used to estimate multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for marital status in relation to overall mortality by race/ethnicity and sex. The study cohort included 393,470 male and 389,697 female cancer patients and 204,007 and 182,600 deaths from all causes, respectively, through December 31, 2012.ResultsAll-cause mortality was higher in unmarried patients than in married patients, but there was significant variation by race/ethnicity. Adjusted HRs (95% CIs) ranged from 1.24 (95% CI, 1.23-1.26) in NHWs to 1.11 (95% CI, 1.07-1.15) in APIs among males and from 1.17 (95% CI, 1.15-1.18) in NHWs to 1.07 (95% CI, 1.04-1.11) in APIs among females. All-cause mortality associated with unmarried status compared with married status was higher in US-born API and Hispanic men and women relative to their foreign-born counterparts.ConclusionsFor patients who have the cancers that contribute most to mortality, being unmarried is associated with worse overall survival compared with being married, with up to 24% higher mortality among NHW males but only 6% higher mortality among foreign-born Hispanic and API females. Future research should pursue the identification of factors underlying these associations to inform targeted interventions for unmarried cancer patients. Cancer 2016;122:1570-8. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

© 2016 American Association for Cancer Research. Background: Previous studies documented racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in survival after Hodgkin lymphoma among adolescents and young adults (AYA), but did not consider the influence of combined-modality treatment and health insurance. Methods: Data for 9,353 AYA patients ages 15 to 39 years when diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma during 1988 to 2011 were obtained from the California Cancer Registry. Using multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression, we examined the impact of sociodemographic characteristics [race/ethnicity, neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES), and health insurance], initial combined- modality treatment, and subsequent cancers on survival. Results: Over the 24-year study period, we observed improvements in Hodgkin lymphoma-specific survival by diagnostic period and differences in survival by race/ethnicity, neighborhood SES, and health insurance for a subset of more recently diagnosed patients (2001-2011). In multivariable analyses, Hodgkin lymphoma-specific survival was worse for Blacks than Whites with early-stage [HR: 1.68; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14-2.49] and late-stage disease (HR: 1.68; 95% CI, 1.17-2.41) and for Hispanics than Whites with late-stage disease (HR: 1.58; 95% CI, 1.22-2.04). AYAs diagnosed with early-stage disease experienced worse survival if they also resided in lower SES neighborhoods (HR: 2.06; 95% CI, 1.59-2.68). Furthermore, more recently diagnosed AYAs with public health insurance or who were uninsured experienced worse Hodgkin lymphoma- specific survival (HR: 2.08; 95% CI, 1.52-2.84). Conclusion: Our findings identify several subgroups of Hodgkin lymphoma patients at higher risk for Hodgkin lymphoma mortality. Impact: Identifying and reducing barriers to recommended treatment and surveillance in these AYAs at much higher risk of mortality is essential to ameliorating these survival disparities.

© 2015 American Cancer Society. Neighborhood social and built environments have been recognized as important contexts in which health is shaped. The authors reviewed the extent to which these neighborhood factors have been addressed in population-level cancer research by scanning the literature for research focused on specific social and/or built environment characteristics and their association with outcomes across the cancer continuum, including incidence, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, and survival. The commonalities and differences in methodologies across studies, the current challenges in research methodology, and future directions in this research also were addressed. The assessment of social and built environment factors in relation to cancer is a relatively new field, with 82% of the 34 reviewed articles published since 2010. Across the wide range of social and built environment exposures and cancer outcomes considered by the studies, numerous associations were reported. However, the directions and magnitudes of associations varied, in large part because of the variation in cancer sites and outcomes studied, but also likely because of differences in study populations, geographic regions, and, importantly, choice of neighborhood measures and geographic scales. The authors recommend that future studies consider the life-course implications of cancer incidence and survival, integrate secondary and self-report data, consider work neighborhood environments, and further develop analytical and statistical approaches appropriate to the geospatial and multilevel nature of the data. Incorporating social and built environment factors into research on cancer etiology and outcomes can provide insights into disease processes, identify vulnerable populations, and generate results with translational impact of relevance for interventionists and policy makers. Cancer 2015;121:2314-2330.