Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Cancer Surveillance Research

Where Can Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions Have the Most Impact?

Rebecca L. Siegel, Liora Sahar, Anthony Robbins and Ahmedin Jemal
Rebecca L. Siegel
Intramural Research Department, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: rebecca.siegel@cancer.org
Liora Sahar
Intramural Research Department, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anthony Robbins
Intramural Research Department, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ahmedin Jemal
Intramural Research Department, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0082 Published August 2015
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: Although colorectal cancer death rates in the United States have declined by half since 1970, large geographic disparities persist. Spatial identification of high-risk areas can facilitate targeted screening interventions to close this gap.

Methods: We used the Getis-Ord Gi* statistic within ArcGIS to identify contemporary colorectal cancer “hotspots” (spatial clusters of counties with high rates) based on county-level mortality data from the national vital statistics system. Hotspots were compared with the remaining aggregated counties (non-hotspot United States) by plotting trends from 1970 to 2011 and calculating rate ratios (RR). Trends were quantified using joinpoint regression.

Results: Spatial mapping identified three distinct hotspots in the contemporary United States where colorectal cancer death rates were elevated. The highest rates were in the largest hotspot, which encompassed 94 counties in the Lower Mississippi Delta [Arkansas (17), Illinois (16), Kentucky (3), Louisiana (6), Mississippi (27), Missouri (15), and Tennessee (10)]. During 2009 to 2011, rates here were 40% higher than the non-hotspot United States [RR, 1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.34–1.46], despite being 18% lower during 1970 to 1972 (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78–0.86). The elevated risk was similar in blacks and whites. Notably, rates among black men in the Delta increased steadily by 3.5% per year from 1970 to 1990, and have since remained unchanged. Rates in hotspots in west central Appalachia and eastern Virginia/North Carolina were 18% and 9% higher, respectively, than the non-hotspot United States during 2009 to 2011.

Conclusions: Advanced spatial analysis revealed large pockets of the United States with excessive colorectal cancer death rates.

Impact: These well-defined areas warrant prioritized screening intervention. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(8); 1151–6. ©2015 AACR.

This article is featured in Highlights of This Issue, p. 1149

Introduction

Tremendous progress against colorectal cancer has been achieved in the United States over the past several decades. Overall, colorectal cancer death rates have declined by 47% since the mid-1970s (1). This reduction has been attributed to increased population screening (53%), as well as changing patterns in risk factors (35%), and improvements in treatment (12%; ref. 2). However, geographic trends vary substantially. We previously reported that since the early 1990s, colorectal cancer death rates had declined by ≥30% in northeastern states, but remained virtually unchanged in Mississippi and Alabama, shifting the burden of disease from the Northeast to the South in little more than a decade (3). This pattern is consistent with the historical shift in the socioeconomic gradient of colorectal cancer. Prior to the late 1980s, colorectal cancer death rates were highest among those with higher income and education levels (4, 5). However, by 2007, colorectal cancer death rates among individuals with the least education were double those of the most educated (6). Geographic differences both in the burden of colorectal cancer and the pace of the downward trend reflect this crossover.

The majority of colorectal cancer deaths are preventable through healthy behaviors, like maintaining a healthy body weight, consuming a healthy diet, being physically active, and engaging in appropriate screening (7). Screening reduces mortality by reducing incidence through the detection and removal of precancerous adenomas, and by detecting malignancies at an early stage, when treatment is most successful. Herein, we extend our previous state-level analysis (3) to the county in order to more precisely highlight high-risk areas where targeted screening programs could have the greatest impact.

Materials and Methods

We accessed colorectal cancer death data from 1970 through 2011 for all counties in the United States using SEER*Stat software, version 8.1.5 (8). SEER*Stat is a product of the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. The SEER program annually obtains mortality files containing all deaths in the United States from the National Center for Health Statistics (numerator data) and population estimates from the Population Estimates Program of the U.S. Census Bureau (denominator data). Following the convention of the National Center for Health Statistics, analysis was limited to those counties with a minimum of 10 deaths per decade to minimize the relative standard error in the calculation of rates. Death rates were expressed per 100,000 person-years and weighted to the 2000 U.S. standard population by the direct method using 5-year age groups to allow for comparison across time and space. County-level rates were calculated for 10-year intervals (1970–79, 1980–89, 1990–99, 2000–09) for stability.

County-level death rates were used as input for cluster analysis with the Getis-Ord Gi* statistic within ArcGIS, version 10.2 (Environmental Science and Research Institute). The Getis-Ord Gi* statistic identifies statistically significant clusters of high and low values based on the “neighborhood” of each county as derived from modeling the spatial relationship among counties. To account for the variation in county size and the exclusion of some counties due to suppression or missing data, we used a Spatial Weight Matrix that quantifies the spatial relationships among counties based on user-defined distance (100 kilometers) or number of neighbors (minimum of 2). The ability to incorporate underlying spatial relationships that take into account the heterogeneity in county location and size is a unique advantage of advanced spatial analysis over the simple mapping commonly used to present cancer surveillance data. In addition, spatial analysis derives clusters based on statistical significance, whereas the interpretation of simple mapping is more prone to bias because cut points can be subjectively defined based on a variety of methodologies (quantiles, standard deviation, etc.). The result of the cluster, or hotspot, analysis includes the associated Z score and P value, indicating the statistical significance of the cluster. We considered statistical significance at the confidence level of 95% or higher, associated with P value < 0.05 and Z score > 1.96.

Death data were also analyzed using Anselin local Moran's I statistic of spatial association (9), available within ArcGIS, and the spatial analysis software tool SaTScan, version 9.3 (10), to validate cluster results. SaTScan analysis was performed using adjusted mortality counts and the spatial, discrete Poisson model. The maximum scan window was adjusted based on the population size, and results were tested for 5% and 10% of the population.

Three-year moving average annual death rates from 1970–72 through 2009–11 were calculated separately for identified hotspots and for the remaining United States counties as a whole, heretofore referred to as the non-hotspot U.S. Trends were quantified using joinpoint regression analysis (11). Rate ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to quantify the risk of colorectal cancer death in hotspots versus the non-hotspot U.S.

Results

The age-standardized colorectal cancer death rate per 100,000 Americans decreased from 29.2 in 1970 to 15.1 in 2011. The magnitude of this decline accelerated over time, from 4% during the 1970s to 27% during the 2000s (Fig. 1). Prior to 1990, colorectal cancer death rates were highest in the northeast and mid-central United States and lowest in the South (Fig. 2). However, by the 2000s, rates were generally homogeneous across the country with the exception of three distinct spatial clusters, or hotspots. These hotspots were located in the Lower Mississippi Delta (Hotspot 1), west central Appalachia (Hotspot 2), and eastern North Carolina/Virginia (Hotspot 3) and included 238 counties in 12 states (Supplementary Table S1). Kentucky had counties in both Hotpot 1 and Hotspot 2. These same three, primarily rural areas were similarly identified by all three spatial analysis tools (data not shown).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Temporal trend in colorectal cancer death rates from 1970 through 2011.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Hotspot analysis of county-level colorectal cancer death rates during the past four decades.

The highest death rates were in the Lower Mississippi Delta. This hotspot, which had a population of 3.7 million in 2011, encompassed a 94-county area that spanned parts of Arkansas (17 counties), Illinois (16), Kentucky (3), Louisiana (6), Mississippi (27), Missouri (15), and Tennessee (10). During 2009 to 2011, the population was 61% white and 37% black, a slight shift from 67% and 32%, respectively, during 1970 to 1972. Colorectal cancer death rates in the Delta were 18% lower than the non-hotspot U.S. during 1970 to 1972 (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78–0.86), but 40% higher during 2009 to 2011 (RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.34–1.46). This crossover occurred around 1990 in both whites and blacks (Fig. 3). While the contemporary race-specific disparity was slightly smaller for whites (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.20–1.33) than for blacks (RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.28–1.47), the difference was not statistically significant. Notably, the trend based on joinpoint regression analysis indicated that while rates are declining in the Delta among white men and women and black women, they have remained unchanged in black men since 1990. Prior to 1990, rates in black men increased steadily by 3.5% per year since at least 1970.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Comparing trends in colorectal cancer death rates by race in the Lower Mississippi Delta (Hotspot 1) with those in the United States (excluding hotspots): 3-year moving annual averages from 1970–1972 through 2009–2011.

The hotspot in the west central region of Appalachia was comprised of 107 counties in Indiana (6), Kentucky (60), Ohio (22), and West Virginia (19). The population of more than 6.2 million was 89% white during 2009 to 2011. In contrast with the Delta, colorectal cancer death rates in this hotspot were higher than national rates in the 1970s, a disparity that widened over the next four decades (Supplementary Fig. S1). The RR increased from 1.10 (95% CI, 1.06–1.14) during 1970–1972 to 1.18 (95% CI, 1.14–1.22) during 2009–2011. Hotspot 3 consisted of 11 counties in northeastern North Carolina and 26 counties in southeastern Virginia and had a racial distribution and colorectal cancer pattern similar to that in the Delta, with an RR of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.71–0.86) during 1970 to 1972 and 1.09 (95% CI, 1.02–1.17) during 2009 to 2011.

Discussion

In contrast with the large decline in colorectal cancer death rates experienced by most of the nation, our study identified three distinct areas in Appalachia and the rural South where progress has lagged. These findings expand on previously reported state disparities in colorectal cancer death rates (3) and are consistent with recent research linking rural residence with increased risk of colorectal cancer death (12, 13). The trends in Hotspots 1 and 3 are also compatible with the historical shift in the burden of colorectal cancer from more to less affluent individuals (5). The patterns in colorectal cancer death rates in these high-risk areas are more similar to those in economically transitioning countries with limited health care resources, such as Romania, Russia, and Mexico (14), than to those in the United States.

The Lower Mississippi Delta and Appalachia are diverse geographic regions distinguished by longstanding challenges that include high unemployment, low levels of education and health literacy, and inadequate access to health care (15–18). The Lower Mississippi Delta has been classified as persistently poor (≥20% poverty) since 1970 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service and has county-level poverty rates that are two standard deviations above the national median (19, 20). High poverty similarly characterizes much of Appalachia and rural North Carolina and Virginia (21). In Appalachia, Central Appalachia is the most poverty-stricken subregion, where ≥20% of people live in poverty in most counties (22). Individuals who are economically disadvantaged have higher colorectal cancer death rates due to both higher incidence rates and poorer disease outcomes. Survival rates among low-income individuals are lower due to a variety of factors, including a higher prevalence of comorbidities, a lower likelihood of tumor resection and adjuvant therapy, and more advanced disease stage (12, 23, 24). Later stage at diagnosis is largely a consequence of lower screening rates among people with lower socioeconomic status (25, 26), often as a result of obstacles in accessing health care. Notably, as of March 2015, only six of the 12 states found to contain high-risk counties have taken advantage of the federal funding opportunity offered by the Affordable Care Act to expand Medicaid coverage (Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia).

Research has demonstrated the efficacy of screening for reducing colorectal cancer mortality both by decreasing incidence through the removal of precancerous lesions and by detecting malignancy at an earlier, more treatable stage (27). Colorectal cancer screening rates have been increasing in the United States since at least 1987 (25, 28), but uptake has not been equally distributed and disparities by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status remain (25, 29). For example, in 2010, 40% of individuals with incomes less than 200% of the federal poverty threshold were current for colorectal cancer screening, compared with 66% of those with incomes of more than 500% of the poverty threshold (30). Area-level poverty is associated with screening behavior independent of individual factors; people who reside in communities with high poverty are less likely to be screened than those living in low-poverty settings even after controlling for income, education, and insurance status (31). The rural poor are at a particular disadvantage because of the low density of specialists for colorectal cancer screening and treatment (32, 33). Disparities by insurance status are even more striking. In 2010, just 19% of individuals without health insurance were current for colorectal cancer screening compared with 62% of those with coverage (34). The Delta Rural Poll found that 22% of Mississippi Delta residents were uninsured in 2009 (35), compared with 17% in the general U.S. population (36). In west central Appalachia, the uninsured rate is more than 19% in the majority of counties, and as high as ≥25% in many counties (22).

Screening inequalities likely contribute to the disparities we observed. Screening in accordance with guidelines has been estimated at 49% in Appalachian Ohio (37), which has among the lowest rates of uninsured in Appalachia (22). Fleming and colleagues found that among Kentucky residents, those living in Appalachia were half as likely as non-Appalachians to report endoscopy screening for colorectal cancer in the past 10 years (38). While colorectal cancer screening rates for the Mississippi Delta are not available, breast cancer screening has been shown to be lower there than in the rest of the United States (39). In addition, a study of cancer incidence in Mississippi found that rural residence was associated with a later stage of disease, which is suggestive of lower screening prevalence in the predominantly rural Delta region (40). According to Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data for 2010, colorectal cancer screening rates were below the national median (64.5%) in each of the 10 states represented in Hotspots 1 and 2, with West Virginia (54.5%), Mississippi (57.1%), and Arkansas (58.6%) ranking in the lowest quartile (41). It is noteworthy that none of the 12 states with counties identified as high-risk in our analysis are among the 25 states funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program, which provides screening services to uninsured and underinsured low-income individuals.

Screening disparities primarily relate to cost and access to care. Income and education are strongly, positively associated with screening, even among insured individuals with a usual physician (42). Other factors associated with low screening rates include lack of knowledge about the importance of screening (43), not having a usual place for health care, and not having a physician recommendation for the test (44). However, a large proportion of underserved patients do not follow through with testing even after a provider recommendation (45). A common provider barrier to screening in underserved communities is an inadequate referral mechanism after an abnormal test (46). Patient navigators or community health workers are particularly beneficial for facilitating follow-up and treatment in underserved populations (47).

Obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) increases the risk of colorectal cancer 2-fold in men and by 50% in women (48). With the exception of Virginia, all of the hotspot states are in the highest quartile for obesity prevalence among adults (49). Within Mississippi, which has the highest obesity prevalence of any state (35% vs. a national median of 27% in 2009), the highest county-level obesity rates (38% to 44%) are concentrated in the Mississippi Delta region (50). In addition, food consumption in the Delta, which is high in soft drinks, red meat, and salty snacks, differs from national patterns in a direction conducive to colorectal cancer development (51). Moreover, Mississippi and West Virginia residents are least likely to participate in leisure-time physical activity (67% vs. the U.S. median of 76%), which protects against colorectal cancer (52).

The primary strength of our study is the innovative use of advanced spatial analysis to analyze four decades of nationwide, county-level vital statistics data and pinpoint geographic disparities in colorectal cancer death rates. Although we were limited to the study of counties with a minimum of 10 deaths per decade in order to produce reliable rates, this represented 93% of all counties during 2000 to 2009 and the Spatial Weight Matrix accounted for these missing data. Due to the nature of ecologic studies, we can only speculate about causes for the disproportionate burden of colorectal cancer. We are also somewhat limited in the interpretation of our results. For example, some portion of the increase in the risk of colorectal cancer death in the Lower Mississippi Delta hotspot is likely due to the shift in the racial distribution of the population, from 32% black in the early 1970s to 37% during 2009 to 2011. However, the effect of population migration on our results was likely minimal because both blacks and whites had similarly elevated risk. The interpretation of death data is also limited by inaccuracies in the underlying cause of death recorded on death certificates. However, misclassification for colorectal cancer is only about 10% (53).

Although the risk of death from colorectal cancer is at a historical low for most Americans, it is unnecessarily high among residents of the Lower Mississippi Delta, Appalachia, and other rural areas. Cancer prevention through lifestyle modification is the preferable mechanism for decreasing cancer occurrence; however, effecting change to reduce obesity and increase physical activity is extremely difficult. Moreover, the fruits of these efforts are not born at the population level for many years. Promoting and improving access to screening through patient navigation and outreach programs offers a more immediate return on investment. The state of Delaware effectively eliminated colorectal cancer disparities in less than a decade by implementing comprehensive statewide colorectal cancer screening (54). The rapid introduction of coordinated, targeted, community-based screening programs in these high-risk areas could be similarly successful.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: A. Robbins, A. Jemal

Development of methodology: R.L. Siegel, L. Sahar, A. Robbins, A. Jemal

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): R.L. Siegel

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): R.L. Siegel, L. Sahar, A. Robbins, A. Jemal

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: R.L. Siegel, L. Sahar, A. Robbins, A. Jemal

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): L. Sahar

Study supervision: A. Jemal

Grant Support

This work was 100% funded by the American Cancer Society.

Footnotes

  • Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention Online (http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/).

  • Received January 26, 2015.
  • Revision received May 21, 2015.
  • Accepted May 22, 2015.
  • ©2015 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Siegel RL,
    2. Miller KD,
    3. Jemal A
    . Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65:5–29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Edwards BK,
    2. Ward E,
    3. Kohler BA,
    4. Eheman C,
    5. Zauber AG,
    6. Anderson RN,
    7. et al.
    Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer 2010;116:544–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Naishadham D,
    2. Lansdorp-Vogelaar I,
    3. Siegel R,
    4. Cokkinides V,
    5. Jemal A
    . State disparities in colorectal cancer mortality patterns in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20:1296–302.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Blot WJ,
    2. Fraumeni JF Jr..,
    3. Stone BJ,
    4. McKay FW
    . Geographic patterns of large bowel cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 1976;57:1225–31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Singh GK,
    2. Miller BA,
    3. Hankey BF
    . Changing area socioeconomic patterns in U.S. cancer mortality, 1950–1998: part II–Lung and colorectal cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:916–25.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Siegel R,
    2. Ward E,
    3. Brawley O,
    4. Jemal A
    . Cancer statistics, 2011: the impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61:212–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Tomeo CA,
    2. Colditz GA,
    3. Willett WC,
    4. Giovannucci E,
    5. Platz E,
    6. Rockhill B,
    7. et al.
    Harvard report on cancer prevention. Volume 3: prevention of colon cancer in the United States. Cancer Causes Control 1999;10:167–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program SEER*Stat Database: Mortality - All COD, Total U.S. (1969–2011) <Katrina/Rita Population Adjustment> - Linked To County Attributes - Total U.S., 1969–2012 Counties, National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch, released April 2014. Underlying mortality data provided by NCHS. 2014.
  9. 9.↵
    1. Anselin L
    . Local indicators of spatial association–LISA. Geogr Anal 1995;27:93–115.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Kulldorff M
    . A spatial scan statistic. Commun Stat 1997;26:1481–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    Joinpoint Regression Program, Version 4.1.1. August 2014; Statistical Research and Applications Branch, National Cancer Institute 2014.
  12. 12.↵
    1. Hines R,
    2. Markossian T,
    3. Johnson A,
    4. Dong F,
    5. Bayakly R
    . Geographic residency status and census tract socioeconomic status as determinants of colorectal cancer outcomes. Am J Public Health 2014;104:e63–71.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Singh GK,
    2. Williams SD,
    3. Siahpush M,
    4. Mulhollen A
    . Socioeconomic, Rural-Urban, and Racial Inequalities in US Cancer Mortality: Part I-All Cancers and Lung Cancer and Part II-Colorectal, Prostate, Breast, and Cervical Cancers. J Cancer Epidemiol 2011;2011:107497.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Center MM,
    2. Jemal A,
    3. Smith RA,
    4. Ward E
    . Worldwide variations in colorectal cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2009;59:366–78.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Behringer B,
    2. Friedell GH
    . Appalachia: where place matters in health. Prev Chronic Dis 2006;3:A113.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Cosby AG,
    2. Bowser DM
    . The health of the delta region: a story of increasing disparities. J Health Hum Serv Adm 2008;31:58–71.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Friedell GH,
    2. Rubio A,
    3. Maretzki A,
    4. Garland B,
    5. Brown P,
    6. Crane M,
    7. et al.
    Community cancer control in a rural, underserved population: the Appalachian Leadership Initiative on Cancer Project. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2001;12:5–19.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Green JJ,
    2. Nylander AB
    . A community based framework for understanding problems and exploring alternatives: connecting underemployment, poverty and access to health care in the Mississippi Delta. Rural Poverty Research Center; February, 2006. p. No. 06–2.
  19. 19.↵
    Economic Research Service. Rural poverty & well-being: geography of poverty united states Department of Agriculture; 2013.
  20. 20.↵
    1. Holt JB
    . The topography of poverty in the United States: a spatial analysis using county-level data from the Community Health Status Indicators project. Prev Chronic Dis 2007;4:A111.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    US Census Bureau. Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE): 2011 Highlights. December 2012.
  22. 22.↵
    1. Pollard K,
    2. Jacobsen LA
    . The Appalachian Region: a data overview from the 2008–2012 American Community Survey. Appalachian Regional Commission; 2014.
  23. 23.↵
    1. Le H,
    2. Ziogas A,
    3. Lipkin SM,
    4. Zell JA
    . Effects of socioeconomic status and treatment disparities in colorectal cancer survival. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17:1950–62.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Lee W,
    2. Nelson R,
    3. Mailey B,
    4. Duldulao MP,
    5. Garcia-Aguilar J,
    6. Kim J
    . Socioeconomic factors impact colon cancer outcomes in diverse patient populations. J Gastrointest Surg 2012;16:692–704.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Meissner HI,
    2. Breen N,
    3. Klabunde CN,
    4. Vernon SW
    . Patterns of colorectal cancer screening uptake among men and women in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:389–94.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Schwartz KL,
    2. Crossley-May H,
    3. Vigneau FD,
    4. Brown K,
    5. Banerjee M
    . Race, socioeconomic status and stage at diagnosis for five common malignancies. Cancer Causes Control 2003;14:761–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Levin B,
    2. Lieberman DA,
    3. McFarland B,
    4. Smith RA,
    5. Brooks D,
    6. Andrews KS,
    7. et al.
    Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58:130–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    Centers for Disease C, Prevention. Cancer screening - United States, 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012;61:41–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Anderson LM,
    2. May DS
    . Has the use of cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening increased in the United States? Am J Public Health 1995;85:840–2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Gupta S,
    2. Sussman DA,
    3. Doubeni CA,
    4. Anderson DS,
    5. Day L,
    6. Deshpande AR,
    7. et al.
    Challenges and possible solutions to colorectal cancer screening for the underserved. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106:dju032.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Schootman M,
    2. Jeffe DB,
    3. Baker EA,
    4. Walker MS
    . Effect of area poverty rate on cancer screening across US communities. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006;60:202–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Aboagye JK,
    2. Kaiser HE,
    3. Hayanga AJ
    . Rural-urban differences in access to specialist providers of colorectal cancer care in the United States: a physician workforce issue. JAMA Surg 2014 Apr 16. [Epub ahead of print].
  33. 33.↵
    1. Cole AM,
    2. Jackson JE,
    3. Doescher M
    . Urban-rural disparities in colorectal cancer screening: cross-sectional analysis of 1998–2005 data from the Centers for Disease Control's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Study. Cancer Med 2012;1:350–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Siegel R,
    2. Desantis C,
    3. Jemal A
    . Colorectal cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 2014;64:104–17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Kerstetter K
    . Lack of insurance coverage leaves many Mississippi Delta residents without access to a regular healthcare provider: a policy brief from the 2009 Delta Rural Poll. Center for Community and Economic Development. Delta State University, Cleveland, MS. October 2009. [accessed April 13, 2015].
  36. 36.↵
    1. DeNavas-Walt C,
    2. Proctor BD,
    3. Smith JC,
    4. U.S. Census Bureau
    . Current Population Reports, P60-238, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2010.
  37. 37.↵
    1. Reiter PL,
    2. Katz ML,
    3. Oliveri JM,
    4. Young GS,
    5. Llanos AA,
    6. Paskett ED
    . Validation of self-reported colorectal cancer screening behaviors among Appalachian residents. Public Health Nurs 2013;30:312–22.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Fleming ST,
    2. Love MM,
    3. Bennett K
    . Diabetes and cancer screening rates among Appalachian and non-Appalachian residents of Kentucky. J Am Board Fam Med 2011;24:682–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Hall HI,
    2. Jamison PM,
    3. Coughlin SS,
    4. Uhler RJ
    . Breast and cervical cancer screening among Mississippi Delta women. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2004;15:375–89.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Higginbotham JC,
    2. Moulder J,
    3. Currier M
    . Rural v. urban aspects of cancer: first-year data from the Mississippi Central Cancer Registry. Fam Community Health 2001;24:1–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Joseph DA,
    2. King JB,
    3. Miller JW,
    4. Richardson LC,
    5. Centers for Disease C, Prevention
    . Prevalence of colorectal cancer screening among adults–Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States, 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012;61 Suppl:51–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. O'Malley AS,
    2. Forrest CB,
    3. Feng S,
    4. Mandelblatt J
    . Disparities despite coverage: gaps in colorectal cancer screening among Medicare beneficiaries. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:2129–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Berkowitz Z,
    2. Hawkins NA,
    3. Peipins LA,
    4. White MC,
    5. Nadel MR
    . Beliefs, risk perceptions, and gaps in knowledge as barriers to colorectal cancer screening in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2008;56:307–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Doubeni CA,
    2. Laiyemo AO,
    3. Young AC,
    4. Klabunde CN,
    5. Reed G,
    6. Field TS,
    7. et al.
    Primary care, economic barriers to health care, and use of colorectal cancer screening tests among Medicare enrollees over time. Ann Fam Med 2010;8:299–307.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. Bazargan M,
    2. Ani C,
    3. Bazargan-Hejazi S,
    4. Baker RS,
    5. Bastani R
    . Colorectal cancer screening among underserved minority population: discrepancy between physicians' recommended, scheduled, and completed tests. Patient Educ Couns 2009;76:240–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. O'Malley AS,
    2. Beaton E,
    3. Yabroff KR,
    4. Abramson R,
    5. Mandelblatt J
    . Patient and provider barriers to colorectal cancer screening in the primary care safety-net. Prev Med 2004;39:56–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Freund KM,
    2. Battaglia TA,
    3. Calhoun E,
    4. Darnell JS,
    5. Dudley DJ,
    6. Fiscella K,
    7. et al.
    Impact of patient navigation on timely cancer care: the Patient Navigation Research Program. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106:dju115.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Calle EE,
    2. Kaaks R
    . Overweight, obesity and cancer: epidemiological evidence and proposed mechanisms. Nat Rev Cancer 2004;4:579–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Fedewa SA,
    2. Sauer AG,
    3. Siegel RL,
    4. Jemal A
    . Prevalence of major risk factors and use of screening tests for cancer in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2015;24:637–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    1. Zhang Z,
    2. Zhang L,
    3. Penman A,
    4. May W
    . Using small-area estimation method to calculate county-level prevalence of obesity in Mississippi, 2007–2009. Prev Chronic Dis 2011;8:A85.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Tucker KL,
    2. Maras J,
    3. Champagne C,
    4. Connell C,
    5. Goolsby S,
    6. Weber J,
    7. et al.
    A regional food-frequency questionnaire for the US Mississippi Delta. Public Health Nutr 2005;8:87–96.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Xu F,
    2. Town M,
    3. Balluz LS,
    4. Bartoli WP,
    5. Murphy W,
    6. Chowdhury PP,
    7. et al.
    Surveillance for certain health behaviors among States and selected local areas - United States, 2010. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Surveill Summ 2013;62:1–247.
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.↵
    1. German RR,
    2. Fink AK,
    3. Heron M,
    4. Stewart SL,
    5. Johnson CJ,
    6. Finch JL,
    7. et al.
    The accuracy of cancer mortality statistics based on death certificates in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol 2011;35:126–31.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Grubbs SS,
    2. Polite BN,
    3. Carney J Jr..,
    4. Bowser W,
    5. Rogers J,
    6. Katurakes N,
    7. et al.
    Eliminating racial disparities in colorectal cancer in the real world: it took a village. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:1928–30.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 24 (8)
August 2015
Volume 24, Issue 8
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Where Can Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions Have the Most Impact?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Where Can Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions Have the Most Impact?
Rebecca L. Siegel, Liora Sahar, Anthony Robbins and Ahmedin Jemal
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev August 1 2015 (24) (8) 1151-1156; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0082

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Where Can Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions Have the Most Impact?
Rebecca L. Siegel, Liora Sahar, Anthony Robbins and Ahmedin Jemal
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev August 1 2015 (24) (8) 1151-1156; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0082
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Authors' Contributions
    • Grant Support
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Stomach Cancer Trends among Circumpolar Nations
  • Insurance Status and HCC Survival
  • U.S. Pediatric CNS Tumor Trends
Show more Cancer Surveillance Research
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
eISSN: 1538-7755
ISSN: 1055-9965

Advertisement