RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Cancer registries offer an avenue to identify cancer clusters across large populations and efficiently examine potential environmental harms affecting cancer. The role of known metal carcinogens (i.e., cadmium, arsenic, nickel, chromium(VI)) in breast and colorectal carcinogenesis is largely unknown. Historically marginalized communities are disproportionately exposed to metals, which could explain cancer disparities. We examined area-based metal exposures and odds of residing in breast and colorectal cancer hotspots utilizing state tumor registry data and described the characteristics of those living in heavy metal-associated cancer hotspots. METHODS: Breast and colorectal cancer hotspots were mapped across Kentucky, and area-based ambient metal exposure to cadmium, arsenic, nickel, and chromium(VI) were extracted from the 2014 National Air Toxics Assessment for Kentucky census tracts. Among colorectal cancer (n = 56,598) and female breast cancer (n = 77,637) diagnoses in Kentucky, we used logistic regression models to estimate Odds Ratios (ORs) and 95% Confidence Intervals to examine the association between ambient metal concentrations and odds of residing in cancer hotspots, independent of individual-level and neighborhood risk factors. RESULTS: Higher ambient metal exposures were associated with higher odds of residing in breast and colorectal cancer hotspots. Populations in breast and colorectal cancer hotspots were disproportionately Black and had markers of lower socioeconomic status. Furthermore, adjusting for age, race, tobacco and neighborhood factors did not significantly change cancer hotspot ORs for ambient metal exposures analyzed. CONCLUSION: Ambient metal exposures contribute to higher cancer rates in certain geographic areas that are largely composed of marginalized populations. Individual-level assessments of metal exposures and cancer disparities are needed.
RESUMEN
Inverse associations between natural vegetation exposure (i.e., greenness) and breast cancer risk have been reported; however, it remains unknown whether greenness affects breast tissue development or operates through other mechanisms (e.g., body mass index [BMI] or physical activity). We examined the association between greenness and mammographic density-a strong breast cancer risk factor-to determine whether greenness influences breast tissue composition independent of lifestyle factors. Methods: Women (n = 2,318) without a history of breast cancer underwent mammographic screening at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, from 2006 to 2014. Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) satellite data at 1-km2 resolution were used to estimate greenness at participants' residential address 1, 3, and 5 years before mammogram. We used multivariable linear regression to estimate differences in log-transformed volumetric mammographic density measures and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each 0.1 unit increase in NDVI. Results: Five-year annual average NDVI was not associated with percent mammographic density in premenopausal (ß = -0.01; 95% CI = -0.03, 0.02; P = 0.58) and postmenopausal women (ß = -0.02; 95% CI = -0.04, 0.01; P = 0.18). Results were similar for 1-year and 3-year NDVI measures and in models including potential mediators of BMI and physical activity. There were also no associations between greenness and dense volume and nondense volume. Conclusions: Greenness exposures were not associated with mammographic density. Impact: Prior observations of a protective association between greenness and breast cancer may not be driven by differences in breast tissue composition, as measured by mammographic density, but rather other mechanisms.