Associations of Renal Cell Carcinoma Subtype with Patient Demographics, Comorbidities, and Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status in the California Population.

BACKGROUND: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes differ in molecular characteristics and prognosis. We investigated the associations of RCC subtype with patient demographics, comorbidity, and neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES). METHODS: Using linked California Cancer Registry and Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development data, we identified history of hypertension, diabetes, and kidney disease prior to RCC diagnosis in Asian/Pacific Islander, non-Latino Black, Latino, and non-Latino White adults diagnosed with their first pathologically confirmed RCC from 2005 through 2015. We used multinomial multivariable logistic regression to model the association of demographics, comorbidity, and nSES with clear-cell, papillary, and chromophobe RCC subtype. RESULTS: Of the 40,016 RCC cases included, 62.6% were clear cell, 10.9% papillary, and 5.9% chromophobe. The distribution of subtypes differed strikingly by race and ethnicity, ranging from 40.4% clear cell and 30.4% papillary in non-Latino Black adults to 70.7% clear cell and 4.5% papillary in Latino adults. In multivariable analysis, non-Latino Black individuals had a higher likelihood of presenting with papillary (OR, 3.99; 95% confidence interval, 3.61-4.42) and chromophobe (OR, 1.81; 1.54-2.13) versus clear-cell subtype compared with non-Latino White individuals. Both hypertension (OR, 1.19; 1.10-1.29) and kidney disease (OR, 2.38; 2.04-2.77 end-stage disease; OR, 1.52; 1.33-1.72 non-end-stage disease) were associated with papillary subtype. Diabetes was inversely associated with both papillary (OR, 0.63; 0.58-0.69) and chromophobe (OR, 0.61; 0.54-0.70) subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: RCC subtype is independently associated with patient demographics, and comorbidity. IMPACT: Targeted RCC treatments or RCC prevention efforts may have differential impact across population subgroups.

The Burden of Rare Cancers in North America.

Background: Rare cancers are difficult to study owing to their infrequent diagnosis. Using aggregate incidence data from population-based cancer registries in Europe, the Surveillance of Rare Cancers in Europe project compiled a list of clinically relevant, topography and morphology defined rare cancers operationally defined as having a crude annual incidence rate of <6 per 100,000 persons. In 2020, this list of rare cancers was updated. The objective of this study was to assess the utility of a rare cancer recode variable for use in the Cancer in North America (CiNA) dataset and to provide a first look at the burden of rare cancers in Canada and the United States. Methods: Data were obtained from 62 registries in Canada and the United States that met North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) high-quality data standards. The list of rare cancers was programmed as a Rare Cancer Classification variable within SEER*Stat. SEER*Stat was used to estimate case counts and crude and age-specific incidence rates per 100,000 for cancers diagnosed 2015-2019 by age at diagnosis, country, and country-specific geographic regions in Canada and the United States, and by race/ethnicity in the United States. Results: In Canada and the United States, 21% and 22% of all invasive cancers were classified as rare, respectively. The percentage of rare cancers ranged between 18% to 21% across geographic regions in Canada and the United States. Children (aged 0-14 years) had the highest percentage and lowest incidence rates of rare cancers. The percentage of rare cancers decreased, and incidence increased with increasing age. In the United States, Hispanics had the highest percentage (27%) and non-Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Blacks the lowest percentage (21%) of rare cancers. Conclusions: While individual rare cancers are infrequently diagnosed, in aggregate, they account for a substantial percentage of all cancers diagnosed in the population and pose a substantial public health burden. We report variations in percentage of rare cancers by age, and race/ethnicity (United States only). Such variations in the burden of these cancers may suggest possible areas for public health research.

Cancer Incidence in Older Adults in the United States: Characteristics, Specificity, and Completeness of the Data.

INTRODUCTION: The number of cancer cases in the United States continues to grow as the number of older adults increases. Accurate, reliable and detailed incidence data are needed to respond effectively to the growing human costs of cancer in an aging population. The purpose of this study was to examine the characteristics of incident cases and evaluate the impact of death-certificate-only (DCO) cases on cancer incidence rates in older adults. METHODS: Using data from 47 cancer registries and detailed population estimates from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program, we examined reporting sources, methods of diagnosis, tumor characteristics, and calculated age-specific incidence rates with and without DCO cases in adults aged 65 through ≥95 years, diagnosed 2011 through 2015, by sex and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: The percentage of cases (all cancers combined) reported from a hospital decreased from 90.6% (ages 65-69 years) to 69.1% (ages ≥95 years) while the percentage of DCO cases increased from 1.1% to 19.6%. Excluding DCO cases, positive diagnostic confirmation decreased as age increased from 96.8% (ages 65-69 years) to 69.2% (ages ≥95 years). Compared to incidence rates that included DCO cases, rates in adults aged ≥95 years that excluded DCO cases were 41.5% lower in Black men with prostate cancer and 29.2% lower in Hispanic women with lung cancer. DISCUSSION: Loss of reported tumor specificity with age is consistent with fewer hospital reports. However, the majority of cancers diagnosed in older patients, including those aged ≥95 years, were positively confirmed and were reported with known site, histology, and stage information. The high percentage of DCO cases among patients aged ≥85 years suggests the need to explore additional sources of follow-back to help possibly identify an earlier incidence report. Interstate data exchange following National Death Index linkages may help registries identify and remove erroneous DCO cases from their databases.

Cervical cancer incidence, mortality, and survival among Asian subgroups in California, 1990-2004.

BACKGROUND: Aggregated cancer statistics for Asians mask important differences in cancer burden among Asian subgroups. The purpose of this study was to describe the relative patterns of cervical cancer incidence, mortality, and survival among Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, South Asian, and Vietnamese women in California, using data from the California Cancer Registry. METHODS: All cervical cancer cases diagnosed among the 6 subgroups and non-Hispanic whites (NHW) from 1990 to 2004 were identified and used to calculate incidence and mortality rates and trends. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate 5- and 10-year survival probabilities by subgroup, and Cox proportional hazards methodology was used to calculate survival differences adjusted for race and ethnicity, age, stage at diagnosis, socioeconomic status, and treatment factors. RESULTS: Vietnamese and Korean women experienced greater cervical cancer incidence and mortality than NHW women, whereas rates among Chinese, Japanese, and South Asians were comparable or lower. Five-year unadjusted survival probabilities were greatest for South Asians (86%) and Koreans (86%), followed by Vietnamese (82%), Chinese (79%), and Filipinos (79%), as compared with NHW (78%) and Japanese (72%). The adjusted risk of cervical cancer death was significantly lower for South Asians, Koreans, Vietnamese, and Filipinos than for NHW women, but not for Chinese and Japanese. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical cancer incidence rates vary substantially across the major Asian subgroups. Despite higher incidence and mortality rates compared with NHW women, Vietnamese, Koreans, and Filipinos have better survival outcomes. Further studies are needed to examine the factors behind these survival differences.