4.7 Article

Increasing Lung Cancer Death Rates Among Young Women in Southern and Midwestern States

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 30, 期 22, 页码 2739-2744

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2012.42.6098

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Intramural Research Department of the American Cancer Society
  2. Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Previous studies reported that declines in age-specific lung cancer death rates among women in the United States abruptly slowed in women younger than age 50 years (ie, women born after the 1950s). However, in view of substantial geographic differences in antitobacco measures and sociodemographic factors that affect smoking prevalence, it is unknown whether this change in the trend was similar across all states. Methods We examined female age-specific lung cancer death rates (1973 through 2007) by year of death and birth in each state by using age-period-cohort models. Cohort relative risks adjusted for age and period effects were used to compare the lung cancer death rate for a given birth cohort to a referent birth cohort (ie, the 1933 cohort herein). Results Age-specific lung cancer death rates declined continuously in white women in California, but the rates declined less quickly or even increased in the remaining states among women younger than age 50 years and women born after the 1950s, especially in several southern and midwestern states. For example, in some southern states (eg, Alabama), lung cancer death rates among women born in the 1960s were approximately double those of women born in the 1930s. Conclusion The unfavorable lung cancer trend in white women born after circa 1950 in southern and midwestern states underscores the need for additional interventions to promote smoking cessation in these high-risk populations, which could lead to more favorable future mortality trends for lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据