Impact of including second and later cancers in cause-specific survival estimates using population-based registry data.

BACKGROUND: Second or later primary cancers account for approximately 20% of incident cases in the United States. Currently, cause-specific survival (CSS) analyses exclude these cancers because the cause of death (COD) classification algorithm was available only for first cancers. The authors added rules for later cancers to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cause-specific death classification algorithm and evaluated CSS to include individuals with prior tumors. METHODS: The authors constructed 2 cohorts: 1) the first ever primary cohort, including patients whose first cancer was diagnosed during 2000 through 2016) and 2) the earliest matching primary cohort, including patients with any cancer who matched the selection criteria irrespective of whether it was the first or a later cancer diagnosed during 2000 through 2016. The cohorts' CSS estimates were compared using follow-up through December 31, 2017. The new rules were used in the second cohort for patients whose first cancers during 2000 through 2016 were their second or later cancers. RESULTS: Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in CSS estimates between the 2 cohorts. Estimates were similar by age, stage, race, and time since diagnosis, except for patients with leukemia and those aged 65 to 74 years (3.4 percentage point absolute difference). CONCLUSIONS: The absolute difference in CSS estimates for the first cancer ever cohort versus earliest of any cancers cohort in the study period was small for most cancer types. As the number of newly diagnosed patients with prior cancers increases, the algorithm will make CSS more inclusive and enable estimating survival for a group of patients with cancer for whom life tables are not available or life tables are available but do not capture other-cause mortality appropriately.

Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2012.

Although there has been considerable progress in reducing cancer incidence in the United States, the number of cancer survivors continues to increase due to the aging and growth of the population and improvements in survival rates. As a result, it is increasingly important to understand the unique medical and psychosocial needs of survivors and be aware of resources that can assist patients, caregivers, and health care providers in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship. To highlight the challenges and opportunities to serve these survivors, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute estimated the prevalence of cancer survivors on January 1, 2012 and January 1, 2022, by cancer site. Data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries were used to describe median age and stage at diagnosis and survival; data from the National Cancer Data Base and the SEER-Medicare Database were used to describe patterns of cancer treatment. An estimated 13.7 million Americans with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2012, and by January 1, 2022, that number will increase to nearly 18 million. The 3 most prevalent cancers among males are prostate (43%), colorectal (9%), and melanoma of the skin (7%), and those among females are breast (41%), uterine corpus (8%), and colorectal (8%). This article summarizes common cancer treatments, survival rates, and posttreatment concerns and introduces the new National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center, which has engaged more than 100 volunteer survivorship experts nationwide to develop tools for cancer survivors, caregivers, health care professionals, advocates, and policy makers.

Cancer and COVID-19: US cancer incidence rates during the first year of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound global impact on health-care systems and patient outcomes. However, the specific effects of the pandemic on cancer incidence rates in the United States during its initial year remain unknown. METHODS: In this study, we analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-22 registries, which encompass approximately 50% of the US population. We investigated changes in monthly incidence rates stratified by various factors, including cancer type, stage, age group, sex, race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, rural-urban status, and registry locations. We compared the incidence rates observed during the pandemic with those from the previous year. RESULTS: Our findings revealed a decline in incidence rates for all cancer sites combined starting in March 2020, coinciding with the implementation of stay-at-home orders. This decline reached its lowest point in April 2020 and persisted at a lower level until May 2020. Notably, compared with April 2019, the incidence rates in April 2020 dropped by 48.1% and did not consistently return to prepandemic levels. The reduction in cancer rates was more pronounced in urban and affluent counties. Across all cancer types, there was a statistically significant decrease in incidence rates during the pandemic, with the largest declines observed in thyroid (71.2%), prostate (57.9%), breast (54.9%), and colon and rectum cancers (54.1%). Furthermore, these decreases were primarily observed in early stage rather than late-stage disease. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic had a statistically significant impact on cancer outcomes. Monitoring long-term consequences of the pandemic on cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, and mortality trends will be crucial.

Assessing racial, ethnic, and nativity disparities in US cancer mortality using a new integrated platform.

BACKGROUND: Foreign-born populations in the United States have markedly increased, yet cancer trends remain unexplored. Survey-based Population-Adjusted Rate Calculator (SPARC) is a new tool for evaluating nativity differences in cancer mortality. METHODS: Using SPARC, we calculated 3-year (2016-2018) age-adjusted mortality rates and rate ratios for common cancers by sex, age group, race and ethnicity, and nativity. Trends by nativity were examined for the first time for 2006-2018. Traditional cancer statistics draw populations from decennial censuses. However, nativity-stratified populations are from the American Community Surveys, thus involve sampling errors. To rectify this, SPARC employed bias-corrected estimators. Death counts came from the National Vital Statistics System. RESULTS: Age-adjusted mortality rates were higher among US-born populations across nearly all cancer types, with the largest US-born, foreign-born difference observed in lung cancer among Black women (rate ratio = 3.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.37 to 4.00). The well-documented White-Black differences in breast cancer mortality existed mainly among US-born women. For all cancers combined, descending trends were more accelerated for US-born compared with foreign-born individuals in all race and ethnicity groups with changes ranging from -2.6% per year in US-born Black men to stable (statistically nonsignificant) among foreign-born Black women. Pancreas and liver cancers were exceptions with increasing, stable, or decreasing trends depending on nativity and race and ethnicity. Notably, foreign-born Black men and foreign-born Hispanic men did not show a favorable decline in colorectal cancer mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Although all groups show beneficial cancer mortality trends, those with higher rates in 2006 have experienced sharper declines. Persistent disparities between US-born and foreign-born individuals, especially among Black people, necessitate further investigation.

Predicting US- and state-level cancer counts for the current calendar year: Part I: evaluation of temporal projection methods for mortality.

BACKGROUND: A study was undertaken to evaluate the temporal projection methods that are applied by the American Cancer Society to predict 4-year-ahead projections. METHODS: Cancer mortality data recorded in each year from 1969 through 2007 for the United States overall and for each state from the National Center for Health Statistics was obtained. Based on the mortality data through 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, Projections were made 4 years ahead to estimate the expected number of cancer deaths in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, respectively, in the United States and in each state, using 5 projection methods. These predictive estimates were compared to the observed number of deaths that occurred for all cancers combined and 47 cancer sites at the national level, and 21 cancer sites at the state level. RESULTS: Among the models that were compared, the joinpoint regression model with modified Bayesian information criterion selection produced estimates that are closest to the actual number of deaths. Overall, results show the 4-year-ahead projection has larger error than 3-year-ahead projection of death counts when the same method is used. However, 4-year-ahead projection from the new method performed better than the 3-year-ahead projection from the current state-space method. CONCLUSIONS: The Joinpoint method with modified Bayesian information criterion model has the smallest error of all the models considered for 4-year-ahead projection of cancer deaths to the current year for the United States overall and for each state. This method will be used by the American Cancer Society to project the number of cancer deaths starting in 2012.

The Cancer Survival Query System: making survival estimates from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program more timely and relevant for recently diagnosed patients.

BACKGROUND: Population-based cancer registries that include patient follow-up generally provide information regarding net survival (ie, survival associated with the risk of dying of cancer in the absence of competing risks). However, registry data also can be used to calculate survival from cancer in the presence of competing risks, which is more clinically relevant. METHODS: Statistical methods were developed to predict the risk of death from cancer and other causes, as well as natural life expectancy if the patient did not have cancer based on a profile of prognostic factors including characteristics of the cancer, demographic factors, and comorbid conditions. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program database was used to calculate the risk of dying of cancer. Because the risks of dying of cancer versus other causes are assumed to be independent conditional on the prognostic factors, a wide variety of independent data sources can be used to calculate the risk of death from other causes. Herein, the risk of death from other causes was estimated using SEER and Medicare claims data, and was matched to the closest fitting portion of the US life table to obtain a "health status-adjusted age." RESULTS: A nomogram was developed for prostate cancer as part of a Web-based Cancer Survival Query System that is targeted for use by physicians and patients to obtain information on a patient's prognosis. More nomograms currently are being developed. CONCLUSIONS: Nomograms of this type can be used as one tool to assist cancer physicians and their patients to better understand their prognosis and to weigh alternative treatment and palliative strategies.

Cancer prevalence by phase of care: an indicator for assessing health service needs.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer prevalence (people alive on a certain date in a population who previously had a cancer diagnosis) is expected to increase in the United States and Europe due to improvements in survival and population aging. Examination of prevalence by phase of care allows us to identify subgroups of patients according to their care trajectories, thus allowing us to improve health care planning, resource allocation, and calculation of costs. METHODS: A new method to estimate prevalence by phase of care using grouped data is illustrated. Prevalence is divided into 3 mutually exclusive phases: initial, continuing, and end-of-life. An application to US and Italian data is applied to prevalent cases diagnosed with colon-rectum, stomach, lung, or breast cancer. RESULTS: The distribution of phase of care prevalence estimated by cancer type and sex and results from the two datasets are very similar. Most survivors are in the continuing phase; the end-of-life phase is larger for cancers with worse prognosis. All phases prevalence is generally higher in the Italian than in the US dataset, except for lung cancer in women, where prevalence proportion in the Italian dataset is 30% lower than in the United States. DISCUSSION: Incidence, survival, and population age structure are the main determinants of prevalence and they can affect differences in all phases of prevalence, as well as in discrete phases. Incidence is the most influential determinant. Ours is the first study that compares prevalence by phase of care between two populations in Italy and the United States. Despite great differences in health care management in the two countries, we found extremely similar distribution of survivors by phase of care for most cancer sites under study.

Long-term survivors of childhood cancers in the United States.

PURPOSE: To estimate the number of individuals in the United States diagnosed with cancer as children (ages 0-19 years) as of 2005, with a focus on those surviving for >30 years. METHODS: To estimate the national prevalence of survivors of childhood cancers, we used data from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results program from 1975 to 2004. Long-term childhood cancer survivors, diagnosed before 1975, were estimated using incidence and survival models extrapolated into years before 1975. RESULTS: We estimated that there are a total of 328,652 survivors of childhood cancer in the United States as of January 1, 2005, of these, 24% have survived >30 years since diagnosis. The cancer sites with the largest number of survivors are brain (51,650), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (49,271), germ cell tumors (34,169), and Hodgkin lymphoma (31,598). Sites with higher proportions of survivors diagnosed >30 years ago are germ cell (43%), soft tissue (38%), renal (34%), and bone (26%). Historical trends from Connecticut data show major improvements in survival for all of the childhood cancer sites. CONCLUSION: The number of survivors of childhood cancers is expected to increase in the future consequent to the lifesaving advances in treatment introduced after 1970, especially for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Because this population is at increased risk for illness-related morbidity and mortality, appreciating the number of survivors who were treated as children is important both to determining the national cancer burden and planning for the future health care needs of these individuals.

Geographical, racial and socio-economic variation in life expectancy in the US and their impact on cancer relative survival.

PURPOSE: Despite gains in life expectancy between 1992 to 2012, large disparities in life expectancy continue to exist in the United States between subgroups of the population. This study aimed to develop detailed life tables (LT), accounting for mortality differences by race, geography, and socio-economic status (SES), to more accurately measure relative cancer survival and life expectancy patterns in the United States. METHODS: We estimated an extensive set of County SES-LT by fitting Poisson regression models to deaths and population counts for U.S. counties by age, year, gender, race, ethnicity and county-level SES index. We reported life expectancy patterns and evaluated the impact of the County SES-LT on relative survival using data from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program cancer registries. RESULTS: Between 1992 and 2012, the largest increase in life expectancy was among black men (6.8 years), however there were still large geographical differences. Life expectancy was highest for Asian or Pacific Islanders (API), and lowest for American Indians and Alaskan Natives (AIAN). In 2010, life expectancies by state ranged from 73 to 82 years for white males, 78 to 86 years for white females, 66 to 75 for black males, and 75 to 81 for black females. Comparisons of relative survival using National LT and the new County SES-LT showed that relative survival using County SES-LT improved relative survival estimates for some demographic groups, particularly in low and high SES areas, among Hispanics and AIAN, and among older male cancer patients. Relative survival using County SES-LT was 7.3% and 6.7% survival points closer to cause-specific survival compared to the National LT relative survival for AIAN and Hispanic cancer patients diagnosed between ages 75 and 84 years, respectively. Importantly, the County SES-LT relative survival estimates were higher in lower SES areas and lower in higher SES areas, reducing differences in relative survival comparisons. CONCLUSION: The use of these new socio-economic life tables (County SES-LT) can provide more accurate estimates of relative survival, improve comparisons of relative survival among registries, better illustrate disparities and cancer control efforts, and should be used as default for cancer relative survival using U.S. data.

Multiple cancer prevalence: a growing challenge in long-term survivorship.

OBJECTIVE: The present study was designed to estimate the number of and describe the pattern of disease among cancer survivors living with a history of multiple malignant tumors in the United States. METHODS: Incidence and follow-up data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program (1975-2001) were used to calculate the number of survivors with more than one malignant primary at January 1, 2002. U.S. prevalence counts were calculated by multiplying the age, sex, and race-specific prevalence proportions from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program by the corresponding U.S. populations. RESULTS: We estimate that 756,467 people in the United States have been affected by cancer more than once between 1975 and 2001, representing almost 8% of the current cancer survivor population. Women whose first primary in that period was breast cancer represent 25% of survivors with multiple cancers, followed by men and women (15%) whose first primary was colorectal cancer and men (13%) whose first primary was prostate cancer. DISCUSSION: The findings in this report have important implications for public health practice. With individuals diagnosed with cancer living longer and the aging of the U.S. population, the number who will develop multiple malignancies is expected to increase. As a consequence, there is a growing need to promote effective cancer screening along with healthy life-styles among these at-risk populations if we are to ensure optimal physical and psychosocial well-being of these long-term cancer survivors and their families. Efforts to design and evaluate effective, efficient, and equitable approaches to surveillance for second malignancies will be critical in reducing the national burden of cancer.

Two Suspected Worksite or Occupational Cancer Clusters Investigated Using the Cancer Data Registry and Multiple Primary Standardized Incidence Ratios in SEER *Stat-Idaho, 2013-2014.

BACKGROUND: Investigations of suspected cancer clusters are resource intensive and rarely identify true clusters: among 428 publicly reported US investigations during 1990-2011, only 1 etiologic cluster was identified. In 2013, the Cancer Data Registry of Idaho (CDRI) was contacted regarding a suspected cancer cluster at a worksite (Cluster A) and among an occupational cohort (Cluster B). We investigated to determine whether these were true clusters. METHODS: We derived investigation cohorts for Cluster A from facility-provided employee records and for Cluster B from professional licensing records. We used Registry PlusTM Link Plus to conduct probabilistic linkage of cohort members to the CDRI registry and completed matching through manual review by using LexisNexis®, Accurint®, and the Social Security Death Index. We calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIR) using the MP-SIR session type in SEER*Stat and Idaho and US referent populations. RESULTS: For Cluster A, we identified 34 cancer cases during 9,689 person-years; compared with Idaho and US rates, 95 percent CIs for SIRs included 1.0 for 24 of 24 primary site categories. For Cluster B, we identified 78 cancer cases during 15,154 person-years; compared with Idaho rates, 95 percent CI for SIRs included 1.0 for 23 of 24 primary site categories and was less than 1.0 for lung and bronchus cancers, and compared with US rates, 95 percent CI for SIRs included 1.0 for 22 of 24 primary site categories and was less than 1.0 for lung and bronchus and colorectal cancers. CONCLUSION: We identified no statistically significant excess in cancer incidence in either cohort. SEER*Stat's MP-SIR is an efficient tool for performing SIR assessments, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists-recommended step when investigating suspected cancer clusters.

The impact of state-specific life tables on relative survival.

BACKGROUND: Relative survival is based on estimating excess cancer mortality in a study population compared to expected mortality of a comparable population without cancer. In the United States, expected mortality is estimated from national life tables matched by age, sex, race, and calendar year to each individual in the study population. We compared five-year relative survival using state life tables to five-year relative survival using US decennial life tables. We assessed variations by age, race, and cancer site for all cancers combined, lung, colorectal, prostate, and female breast cancers. METHODS: We used data from 17 National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program registries, including diagnoses from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009 with follow-up through December 31, 2010. Five-year relative survival was calculated using US-based life tables (USLT) and state-specific life tables (SLT). RESULTS: Differences in SLT- and USLT-based survival were generally small (SLT < 4 survival percentage points lower than USLT). Differences were higher for states with high SES and low mortality and for prostate cancer. Differences were largest for all cancers combined, colon and rectum, and prostate cancer among males aged 85+ ranging from -10 to -17 survival points for whites and +9 to +17 for blacks. CONCLUSION: Differences between relative survival based on USLT and SLT were small and state-based estimates were less reliable than US-based estimates for older populations aged 85+. Our findings underscore the need to develop more appropriate life tables that better represent the varying mortality patterns in different populations in order to obtain accurate estimates of relative survival.

Cancer survivors in the United States: prevalence across the survivorship trajectory and implications for care.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors represent a growing population, heterogeneous in their need for medical care, psychosocial support, and practical assistance. To inform survivorship research and practice, this manuscript will describe the prevalent population of cancer survivors in terms of overall numbers and prevalence by cancer site and time since diagnosis. METHODS: Incidence and survival data from 1975-2007 were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program and population projections from the United States Census Bureau. Cancer prevalence for 2012 and beyond was estimated using the Prevalence Incidence Approach Model, assuming constant future incidence and survival trends but dynamic projections of the U.S. population. RESULTS: As of January 1, 2012, approximately 13.7 million cancer survivors were living in the United States with prevalence projected to approach 18 million by 2022. Sixty-four percent of this population have survived 5 years or more; 40% have survived 10 years or more; and 15% have survived 20 years or more after diagnosis. Over the next decade, the number of people who have lived 5 years or more after their cancer diagnosis is projected to increase approximately 37% to 11.9 million. CONCLUSIONS: A coordinated agenda for research and practice is needed to address cancer survivors' long-term medical, psychosocial, and practical needs across the survivorship trajectory. IMPACT: Prevalence estimates for cancer survivors across the survivorship trajectory will inform the national research agenda as well as future projections about the health service needs of this population.

Cancer incidence trends among Asian American populations in the United States, 1990-2008.

BACKGROUND: National cancer incidence trends are presented for eight Asian American groups: Asian Indians/Pakistanis, Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, Kampucheans, Koreans, Laotians, and Vietnamese. METHODS: Cancer incidence data from 1990 through 2008 were obtained from 13 Surveillance, Epidemiology, End Results (SEER) registries. Incidence rates from 1990 through 2008 and average percentage change were computed using SEER*Stat and Joinpoint software. The annual percentage change (APC) in incidence rates was estimated with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) calculated for both the rate and APC estimates. Rates for non-Hispanic whites are presented for comparison. RESULTS: Prostate cancer was the most common malignancy among most groups, followed by lung, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers. Breast cancer was generally the most common cancer in women, followed by colorectal and lung cancers; liver, cervix, thyroid, and stomach cancers also ranked highly. Among men, increasing trends were observed for prostate (Asian Indians and Pakistanis: APC 1990-2003 = 2.2, 95% CI = 0.3 to 4.1; Filipinos: APC 1990-1994 = 19.0, 95% CI = 4.5 to 35.4; Koreans: APC 1990-2008 = 2.9, 95% CI = 1.8 to 4.0), colorectal (Koreans: APC 1990-2008 = 2.2, 95% CI = 0.9 to 3.5), and liver cancers (Filipinos: APC 1990-2008 = 1.6, 95% CI = 0.4 to 2.7; Koreans: APC 1990-2006 = 2.1, 95% CI = 0.4 to 3.7; Vietnamese: APC 1990-2008 = 1.6, 95% CI = 0.3 to 2.8), whereas lung and stomach cancers generally remained stable or decreased. Among women, increases were observed for uterine cancer (Asian Indians: APC 1990-2008 = 3.0, 95% CI = 0.3 to 5.8; Chinese: APC 2004-2008 = 7.0, 95% CI = 1.4 to 12.9; Filipina: APC 1990-2008 = 3.0, 95% CI = 2.4 to 3.7; Japanese: APC 1990-2008 = 1.1, 95% CI = 0.1 to 2.0), colorectal cancer (Koreans: APC 1990-2008 = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.7 to 3.9; Laotians: APC: 1990-2008 = 5.9, 95% CI = 4.0 to 7.7), lung cancer (Filipinas: APC 1990-2008 = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.4 to 2.8; Koreans: APC 1990-2008 = 2.1, 95% CI = 0.6 to 3.6), thyroid cancer (Filipinas: APC 1990-2008 = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.7 to 3.3), and breast cancer in most groups (APC 1990-2008 from 1.2 among Vietnamese and Chinese to 4.7 among Koreans). Decreases were observed for stomach (Chinese and Japanese), colorectal (Chinese), and cervical cancers (Laotians and Vietnamese). CONCLUSIONS: These data fill a critical knowledge gap concerning the cancer experience of Asian American groups and highlight where increased preventive, screening, and surveillance efforts are needed-in particular, lung cancer among Filipina and Korean women and Asian Indian/Pakistani men, breast cancer among all women, and liver cancer among Vietnamese, Laotian, and Kampuchean women and Filipino, Kampuchean, and Vietnamese men.

Cancer incidence trends among native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders in the United States, 1990-2008.

BACKGROUND: Lack of annual population estimates for disaggregated Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI) populations limits the ability to examine cancer incidence rates and trends to understand the cancer burdens among NHOPIs. METHODS: Utilizing 1990 and 2000 population census data, we estimated the annual populations by age and sex for Native Hawaiians, Samoans, and Guamanians/Chamorros for 1990-2008 in regions covered by 13 of the National Cancer Institute's SEER registries. Cancer diagnoses during 1990-2008 from these registries were used to calculate the age-adjusted (2000 US Standard) incidence rates by sex, calendar year/period, and cancer type for each population. The annual percentage change (APC) in incidence rates was estimated with the 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) calculated for both the rate and APC estimates. RESULTS: Statistically significant declining trends were found in Native Hawaiians, in men for lung and stomach cancers (APC = -2.3%; 95% CI = -3.3 to -1.3; and APC = -3.8%; 95% CI = -6.0 to -1.6, respectively), and in women for breast cancer (APC = -4.1%; 95% CI = -5.7 to -2.5) since 1998 and lung cancer (APC = -6.4%; 95% CI = -10.7 to -1.8) since 2001. Rising incidence trends were experienced by Samoans, especially by Samoan women for breast (APC = 2.7%; 95% CI = 0.9 to 4.5) and uterus (APC = 7.3%; 95% CI = 6.2 to 8.4) cancers. With limited data, Guamanians/Chamorros demonstrated lower, but increasing, incidence rates than other NHOPIs. CONCLUSIONS: Population-based cancer incidence rates for disaggregated NHOPI populations help identify disparities in cancer burden and provide valuable information to improve cancer control efforts among NHOPIs.

Breast cancer survivors in the United States: geographic variability and time trends, 2005-2015.

BACKGROUND: : Breast cancer continues to place a significant burden on the healthcare system. Regional prevalence measures are instrumental in the development of cancer control policies. Very few population-based cancer registries are able to provided local, long-term incidence and follow-up information that permits the direct calculation of prevalence. Model-based prevalence estimates are an alternative when this information is lacking or incomplete. The current work represents a comprehensive collection of female breast cancer prevalence from 2005 to 2015 in the United States and the District of Columbia (DC). METHODS: : Breast cancer prevalence estimates were derived from state-specific cancer mortality and survival data using a statistical package called the Mortality-Incidence Analysis Model or MIAMOD. Cancer survival models were derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program data and were adjusted to represent state-specific survival. Comparisons with reported incidence for 39 states and DC had validated estimates. RESULTS: : By the year 2010, 2.9 million breast cancer survivors are predicted in the US, equaling 1.85% of the female population. Large variability in prevalent percentages was reported between states, ranging from 1.4% to 2.4% in 2010. Geographic variability was reduced when calculating age-standardized prevalence proportions or cancer survivors by disease duration, including 0 to 2 years and 2 to 5 years. The residual variability in age-adjusted prevalence was explained primarily by the state-specific, age-adjusted breast cancer incidence rates. State-specific breast cancer survivors are expected to increase from 16% to 51% in the decennium from 2005 to 2015 and by 31% at the national level. CONCLUSIONS: : To the authors' knowledge, the current study is the first to provide systematic estimations of breast cancer prevalence in all US states through 2015. The estimated levels and time trends were consistent with the available population-based data on breast cancer incidence, prevalence, and population aging. Cancer 2009. (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.