Search

Background: Screening current and former heavy smokers 55 to 80 years of age for lung cancer (LC) with low-dose chest CT scanning has been recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force since 2013. Although the number of screening facilities in the United States has increased, screening uptake has been slow.Research Question: To what extent is geographic access to screening facilities a barrier for screening uptake nationally?Study Design and Methods: Screening facilities were defined as American College of Radiology (ACR) Lung Cancer Screening Registry (LCSR) facilities. Analysis was performed at different geographic levels using a road network to calculate travel distances for the recommended age groups. Full access to screening was defined as the entire 55- to 79-year-old population being within 40 miles of an ACR LCSR facility. No access was defined as lack of access by the entire target population. Partial access was expressed in intervening quartiles. A geospatial approach then was used to integrate accessibility with smoking prevalence and LC mortality rates to identify potential focus areas visually.Results: Screening facilities addresses were geocoded to identify 3,592 unique locations. Analysis of census tracts and aggregation to counties revealed that among 3,142 counties, adults 55 to 79 years of age have full access to an LC screening registry facility in 1,988 (63%) counties, partial access in 587 (19%) counties, and no access in 567 (18%) counties. Overall, less than 6% of those 55 to 79 years of age do not have access to registry screening facilities. Variation in screening facility access was noted across the United States, between states, and within some states.Interpretation: It is recommended to calculate accessibility using subcounty geographies and to examine variation regionally and within states. A foundation geographic accessibility layer can be integrated with other variables to identify geographic disparities in access to screening and to focus on areas for interventions. Identifying areas of greatest need can inform state and local officials and healthcare organizations when planning and implementing LC screening programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although counties are the smallest geographic level for comprehensive health-care delivery analysis, little is known about county-level variations in receipt of curative-intent surgery for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and factors contributing to such variations in the United States.Methods: A total of 179,189 patients aged ≥ 35 years who were diagnosed with stage I to II NSCLC between 2007 and 2014 in 2,263 counties were identified from 39 states, the District of Columbia, and Detroit population-based cancer registries; the data were compiled by the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. The percentage of patients who underwent surgery was calculated for each county with ≥ 20 cases. Adjusted risk ratios were generated by using generalized estimating equation models with modified Poisson regression.Results: Receipt of surgery for early-stage NSCLC during 2007 to 2014 according to county ranged from 12.8% to 48.6% in the lowest decile of counties, to 74.3% to 91.7% in the highest decile of counties. There were pockets of low surgery receipt rate counties within each state. For example, there was a 25% absolute difference between the lowest and highest surgery receipt rate counties in Massachusetts. Counties in the lowest quartile for receipt of surgery were those with a high proportion of non-Hispanic black subjects, high poverty and uninsured rates, low surgeon-to-population ratio, and nonmetropolitan status.Conclusions: Receipt of curative-intent surgery for early-stage NSCLC varied substantially across counties in the United States, with pockets of low receipt counties in each state. Low surgery receipt counties were characterized by unfavorable area-level socioeconomic and health-care delivery factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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., (© 2021 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: There are limited data on the burden of cancer attributable to cigarette smoking by metropolitan areas to inform local tobacco control policies in the USA. We estimated the proportion of cancer deaths attributable to cigarette smoking (or population attributable fraction [PAF]) in 152 U.S. metropolitan or micropolitan statistical areas (MMSAs)., Methods: Smoking-related PAFs for cancer mortality in ages ≥ 30 years in 2013-2017 were estimated using cross-sectional age-, sex-, and MMSA-specific cigarette smoking prevalence and cancer mortality data obtained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the U.S. Cancer Statistics Database, respectively., Results: Overall smoking-related PAFs of cancer ranged from 8.8% (95% CI, 6.3-11.9%) to 35.7% (33.3-37.9%); MMSAs with the highest PAFs were in the South region and Appalachia. PAFs also substantially varied across MMSAs within regions or states. In the Northeast, for example, the PAF ranged from 24.2% (23.7-24.7%) to 33.7% (31.3-36.2%)., Conclusion: The proportion of cancer deaths attributable to cigarette smoking is considerable in each MMSA, with as many as 4 in 10 cancer deaths attributable to smoking in the South region and Appalachia. Broad and equitable implementation and enforcement of proven tobacco control interventions at all government levels could avert many cancer deaths across the USA.

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., (© 2015 American Cancer Society.)