Recent declines in cancer incidence: related to the Great Recession?

PURPOSE: In recent years, cancer case counts in the U.S. underwent a large, rapid decline-an unexpected change given population growth for older persons at highest cancer risk. As these declines coincided with the Great Recession, we examined whether they were related to economic conditions. METHODS: Using California Cancer Registry data from California's 30 most populous counties, we analyzed trends in cancer incidence during pre-recession (1996-2007) and recession/recovery (2008-2012) periods for all cancers combined and the ten most common sites. We evaluated the recession's association with rates using a multifactorial index that measured recession impact, and modeled associations between case counts and county-level unemployment rates using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Yearly cancer incidence rate declines were greater during the recession/recovery (3.3% among males, 1.4% among females) than before (0.7 and 0.5%, respectively), particularly for prostate, lung, and colorectal cancers. Lower case counts, especially for prostate and liver cancer among males and breast cancer, melanoma, and ovarian cancer among females, were associated with higher unemployment rates, irrespective of time period, but independent of secular effects. The associations for melanoma translated up to a 3.6% decrease in cases with each 1% increase in unemployment. Incidence declines were not greater in counties with higher recession impact index. CONCLUSIONS: Although recent declines in incidence of certain cancers are not differentially impacted by economic conditions related to the Great Recession relative to pre-recession conditions, the large recent absolute declines in the case counts of some cancer may be attributable to the large declines in unemployment in the recessionary period. This may occur through decreased engagement in preventive health behaviors, particularly for clinically less urgent cancers. Continued monitoring of trends is important to detect any rises in incidence rates as deferred diagnoses come to clinical attention.

Prevalence and characteristics of cancer patients receiving care from single vs. multiple institutions.

INTRODUCTION: Patients may receive cancer care from multiple institutions. However, at the population level, such patterns of cancer care are poorly described, complicating clinical research. To determine the population-based prevalence and characteristics of patients seen by multiple institutions, we used operations data from a state-mandated cancer registry. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 59,672 invasive cancers diagnosed in 1/1/2010-12/31/2011 in the Greater Bay Area of northern California were categorized as having been reported to the cancer registry within 365days of diagnosis by: 1) ≥1 institution within an integrated health system (IHS); 2) IHS institution(s) and ≥1 non-IHS institution (e.g., private hospital); 3) 1 non-IHS institution; or 4) ≥2 non-IHS institutions. Multivariable logistic regression was used to characterize patients reported by multiple vs. single institutions. RESULTS: Overall in this region, 17% of cancers were reported by multiple institutions. Of the 33% reported by an IHS, 8% were also reported by a non-IHS. Of non-IHS patients, 21% were reported by multiple institutions, with 28% for breast and 27% for pancreatic cancer, but 19%% for lung and 18% for prostate cancer. Generally, patients more likely to be seen by multiple institutions were younger or had more severe disease at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Population-based data show that one in six newly diagnosed cancer patients received care from multiple institutions, and differed from patients seen only at a single institution. Cancer care data from single institutions may be incomplete and possibly biased.