Search

Background: Although recommended lung cancer screening with low‐dose computed tomography scanning (LDCT) reduces mortality among high‐risk adults, annual screening rates remain low. This study complements a previous nationwide assessment of access to lung cancer screening within 40 miles by evaluating differences in accessibility across rural and urban settings for the population aged 50 to 80 years and a subset eligible population based on the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force LDCT lung screening recommendations. Methods: Distances from population centers to screening facilities (American College of Radiology Lung Cancer Screening Registry) were calculated, and the number of individuals who had access within graduating distances, including 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles, were estimated. Census tract results were aggregated to counties, and both geographies were classified with rural‐urban schemas. Results: Approximately 5% of the eligible population did not have access to lung cancer screening facilities within 40 miles; however, different patterns of accessibility were observed at different distances, between regions, and across rural‐urban environments. Across all distances and geographies, there was a larger percentage of the population in rural geographies with no access. Although the rural population represented approximately 8% of the eligible population, the larger percentage of the rural population with no access was noteworthy and translated into a larger number of individuals with no access at longer distance thresholds (≥40 miles). Conclusions: Disparities in access should be examined as both percentages of the population and numbers of individuals with no access in order to tailor interventions to communities and increase access. Geospatial analysis at the census tract level is recommended to help to identify optimal focus areas and reach the most people. Lay Summary: As annual lung cancer screening rates remain low, this study examines access to lung cancer screening nationwide and across rural and urban settings.A geographic information system network analysis of census tract–level populations is used to estimate access at different distances, including 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles, and the results are aggregated to counties.Approximately 5% of the eligible population does not have access to screening facilities within 40 miles; however, different patterns of accessibility are observed at different distances, between regions, and across rural‐urban environments.Across all distances and geographies, there is a larger percentage of the population in rural geographies with no access. This study uses geospatial analysis to examine access to lung cancer screening at graduating distances nationwide and across rural‐urban settings. Approximately 5% of the eligible population does not have access to lung cancer screening facilities within 40 miles; however, different patterns of accessibility are observed at different distances, between regions, and across rural‐urban environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The impact of disasters on the delivery of health services suggests that patients with cancer should be identified as a vulnerable population that requires additional attention and assistance during a disaster. Incorporating the special case of these patients into an event management framework can elevate resilience, decrease suffering, and save lives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Maps are well recognized as an effective means of presenting and communicating health data, such as cancer incidence and mortality rates. These data can be linked to geographic features like counties or census tracts and their associated attributes for mapping and analysis. Such visualization and analysis provide insights regarding the geographic distribution of cancer and can be important for advancing effective cancer prevention and control programs. Applying a spatial approach allows users to identify location-based patterns and trends related to risk factors, health outcomes, and population health. Geographic information science (GIScience) is the discipline that applies Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and other spatial concepts and methods in research. This review explores the current state and evolution of GIScience in cancer research by addressing fundamental topics and issues regarding spatial data and analysis that need to be considered. GIScience, along with its health-specific application in the spatial epidemiology of cancer, incorporates multiple geographic perspectives pertaining to the individual, the health care infrastructure, and the environment. Challenges addressing these perspectives and the synergies among them can be explored through GIScience methods and associated technologies as integral parts of epidemiologic research, analysis efforts, and solutions. The authors suggest GIScience is a powerful tool for cancer research, bringing additional context to cancer data analysis and potentially informing decision-making and policy, ultimately aimed at reducing the burden of cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Knowledge of the cancer burden is important for informing and advocating cancer prevention and control. Mortality data are readily available for states and counties, but not for congressional districts, from which representatives are elected and which may be more influential in compelling legislation and policy. The authors calculated average annual cancer death rates during 2002 to 2011 for each of the 435 congressional districts using mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics and population estimates from the US Census Bureau. Age-standardized death rates were mapped for all sites combined and separately for cancers of the lung and bronchus, colorectum, breast, and prostate by race/ethnicity and sex. Overall cancer death rates vary by almost 2-fold and are generally lowest in Mountain states and highest in Appalachia and areas of the South. The distribution is similar for lung and colorectal cancers, with the lowest rates consistently noted in districts in Utah. However, for breast and prostate cancers, while the highest rates are again scattered throughout the South, the geographic pattern is less clear and the lowest rates are in Hawaii and southern Texas and Florida. Within-state heterogeneity is limited, particularly for men, with the exceptions of Texas, Georgia, and Florida. Patterns also vary by race/ethnicity. For example, the highest prostate cancer death rates are in the West and north central United States among non-Hispanic whites, but in the deep South among African Americans. Hispanics have the lowest rates except for colorectal cancer in Wyoming, eastern Colorado, and northern New Mexico. These data can facilitate cancer control and stimulate conversation about the relationship between cancer and policies that influence access to health care and the prevalence of behavioral and environmental risk factors. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65:339-344. © 2015 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study assesses and characterizes the vulnerability of unregulated groundwater systems to microbial contamination in 18 counties in the state of Georgia using a contamination risk screening strategy based on watershed characteristics and elements of the Safe Drinking Water Act's Wellhead Protection program. Environmental data sources analyzed include septic systems, elevation, land use and land cover data, soil, vegetation coverage, demographics, and livestock. A geospatial overlay/index modeling approach was developed to identify areas of higher vulnerability for groundwater pollution by taking into consideration watershed land use, hydrology, and topography ( LHT). Sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate the effectiveness of model variables. The results of the model were validated by using field data and output from U.S. EPA's DRASTIC model, a widely used intrinsic vulnerability assessment tool. The validation showed a higher risk of microbial contamination for wells located in a high to medium LHT vulnerability zones. LHT provided a clear distribution of satisfactory and unsatisfactory wells in the three vulnerability zones; however, the majority of wells (>75%), with both satisfactory and unsatisfactory test results, are located in medium DRASTIC vulnerability zone. This difference between LHT and DRASTIC can be attributed to the microbial contamination specific factors incorporated into LHT index. It is concluded that although inclusion of potential contamination sources on adjacent land uses in the vulnerability assessment framework adds to the complexity of the processes involved in a vulnerability assessment, such inclusion provides a meaningful perspective to groundwater protection efforts as an effective screening tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]