Utility and Generalizability of Multistate, Population-Based Cancer Registry Data for Rural Cancer Surveillance Research in the United States.

More than 46 million Americans live in rural areas, but rural populations remain relatively understudied in cancer disparities research. However, several analyses of multistate cancer registry data that describe the rural cancer incidence burden have been recently published. In light of this, our article aims to characterize the utility and generalizability of multistate, population-based cancer registry datasets for rural cancer surveillance research. First, we describe the accessibility, geographic coverage, available variables, and strengths and weaknesses of five data sources. Second, we evaluate two of these data sources-the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) public use dataset (93% population coverage) and the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) 18 dataset (28% population coverage)-on their characterization of rural-urban cancer incidence rates and sociodemographic representation. The five data sources varied in geographic coverage and extent of available variables. SEER 18's cancer rates sociodemographic representation differed from the more geographically representative NAACCR data. We suggest that SEER increase its geographic coverage to improve their generalizability and to take advantage of their utility to assess disparities along the cancer control continuum. We also suggest that non-SEER data sources be utilized more frequently to capitalize on their extensive geographic coverage. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(11); 1252-60. ©2018 AACR.

Rural-Urban Differences in Cancer Incidence and Trends in the United States.

Background: Cancer incidence and mortality rates in the United States are declining, but this decrease may not be observed in rural areas where residents are more likely to live in poverty, smoke, and forego cancer screening. However, there is limited research exploring national rural-urban differences in cancer incidence and trends.Methods: We analyzed data from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries' public use dataset, which includes population-based cancer incidence data from 46 states. We calculated age-adjusted incidence rates, rate ratios, and annual percentage change (APC) for: all cancers combined, selected individual cancers, and cancers associated with tobacco use and human papillomavirus (HPV). Rural-urban comparisons were made by demographic, geographic, and socioeconomic characteristics for 2009 to 2013. Trends were analyzed for 1995 to 2013.Results: Combined cancers incidence rates were generally higher in urban populations, except for the South, although the urban decline in incidence rate was greater than in rural populations (10.2% vs. 4.8%, respectively). Rural cancer disparities included higher rates of tobacco-associated, HPV-associated, lung and bronchus, cervical, and colorectal cancers across most population groups. Furthermore, HPV-associated cancer incidence rates increased in rural areas (APC = 0.724, P < 0.05), while temporal trends remained stable in urban areas.Conclusions: Cancer rates associated with modifiable risks-tobacco, HPV, and some preventive screening modalities (e.g., colorectal and cervical cancers)-were higher in rural compared with urban populations.Impact: Population-based, clinical, and/or policy strategies and interventions that address these modifiable risk factors could help reduce cancer disparities experienced in rural populations. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(11); 1265-74. ©2017 AACR.

Rural-urban differences in surgical treatment, regional lymph node examination, and survival in endometrial cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecological malignancy and one of few cancers with an increasing US mortality rate. Rural patients may have less access to specialty care affecting their receipt of surgery and adequate lymphadenectomy (AL). We sought to assess rural-urban differences in EC surgery, lymphadenectomy, and survival. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database on EC patients (2004-2013). We performed univariate analyses to compare rural and urban patients on demographic and clinical characteristics and receipt of nodal examination and AL. We assessed rural-urban differences in trends of receipt of AL, performed logistic regression to evaluate differences in receipt of surgery, nodal examination, and AL, and performed survival analysis. RESULTS: Rural patients were less likely to have any lymph nodes removed, had a smaller median number removed, and a smaller proportion had AL. Even after controlling for established risk factors, rural patients had lower odds of lymph node examination and adequate AL than urban patients and also had poorer survival. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should continue to assess the association between access to care and disparities in surgical care and the effect of these disparities on survival.

Antipyretic Therapy in Critically Ill Septic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to examine the impact of antipyretic therapy on mortality in critically ill septic adults. DATA SOURCES: Literature searches were implemented in Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria were observational or randomized studies of septic patients, evaluation of antipyretic treatment, mortality reported, and English-language version available. Studies were excluded if they enrolled pediatric patients, patients with neurologic injury, or healthy volunteers. Criteria were applied by two independent reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated methodologic quality. Outcomes included mortality, frequency of shock reversal, acquisition of nosocomial infections, and changes in body temperature, heart rate, and minute ventilation. Randomized and observational studies were analyzed separately. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight randomized studies (1,507 patients) and eight observational studies (17,432 patients) were analyzed. Antipyretic therapy did not reduce 28-day/hospital mortality in the randomized studies (relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.77-1.13; I = 0.0%) or observational studies (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.54-1.51; I = 76.1%). Shock reversal (relative risk, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.68-1.90; I = 51.6%) and acquisition of nosocomial infections (relative risk, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.61-2.09; I = 61.0%) were also unchanged. Antipyretic therapy decreased body temperature (mean difference, -0.38°C; 95% CI, -0.63 to -0.13; I = 84.0%), but not heart rate or minute ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Antipyretic treatment does not significantly improve 28-day/hospital mortality in adult patients with sepsis.