Abstract
Background
Cancer survival has improved for the most common cancers. However, less improvement and lower survival has been observed in some groups perhaps due to differential access to cancer care including prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment.
Methods
To further understand contemporary relative cancer survival (one- and five- year), we used survival data from CDC’s National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) for cancers diagnosed during 2007–2016. We examined overall relative cancer survival by sex, race and ethnicity, age, and county-level metropolitan and non-metropolitan status. Relative cancer survival by metropolitan and non-metropolitan status was further examined by sex, race and ethnicity, age, and cancer type.
Results
Among persons with cancer diagnosed during 2007–2016 the overall one-year and five-year relative survival was 80.6% and 67.4%, respectively. One-year relative survival for persons living in metropolitan counties was 81.1% and 77.8% among persons living in non-metropolitan counties. We found that persons who lived in non-metropolitan counties had lower survival than those who lived in metropolitan counties, and this difference persisted across sex, race and ethnicity, age, and most cancer types.
Conclusion
Further examination of the differences in cancer survival by cancer type or other characteristics might be helpful for identifying potential interventions, such as programs that target screening and early detection or strategies to improve access to high quality cancer treatment and follow-up care, that could improve long-term outcomes.
Impact
This analysis provided a high-level overview of contemporary cancer survival in the United States.
Introduction
Even though cancer incidence rates stabilized during 2013 to 2016 among males and increased slightly among females, cancer death rates continued to decline steadily among both males and females [1]. Changes in incidence and mortality reflect, in part, changes in cancer risk factors and screening and imaging test use, while declines in cancer mortality may also be due to improvements in early detection and treatment of cancer. Differences in stage at diagnosis, timeliness of follow-up after diagnosis, appropriate treatment after diagnosis, or having a chronic condition may impact differences in survival after cancer diagnosis [2]. Hence, along with incidence and death rates, examining cancer survival is useful in assessing progress in efforts to improve cancer outcomes [3, 4].
Cancer survival has improved since the mid‐1970s, overall and for several common cancers [4]. However, less improvement and lower survival has been observed in some groups–defined by age, race and ethnicity, geography, and other characteristics–perhaps due to differential access to cancer care including prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Previous studies have found five-year relative survival is highest when cancer is diagnosed before age 45 years and decreases with increasing age [5]. Differences in survival rates have been observed among racial and ethnic groups. One study found Black cancer patients have lower five-year relative survival compared to cancer patients in other racial and ethnic groups [6]. Many studies, particularly of prostate and colorectal cancer, have observed lower survival among cancer patients who live in rural areas compared to those who live in urban areas [7].
To further the understanding of recent relative cancer survival (one- and five- year), we used survival data from CDC’s National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) for cancers diagnosed during 2007–2016. We examined overall relative cancer survival by sex, race and ethnicity, age and county-level metropolitan and non-metropolitan status. Relative cancer survival by metropolitan and non-metropolitan status was further examined by sex, race and ethnicity, age, and cancer type.
Methods
Data source
Cancer survival data
Data on survival patterns of cancers diagnosed in the United States diagnosed during 2007–2016, the most recently available data, were obtained from the NPCR survival dataset. The data set, which covers 94% of the U.S. population, includes 45 population-based cancer registries that met U.S. Cancer Statistics (USCS) publication criteria and conducted active patient follow-up or linkage with CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) National Death Index to determine vital status [8]. Cancers were coded using International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition [9]. Relative survival was examined by sex, race and ethnicity, age, cancer type, and metropolitan and non-metropolitan status.
Race and ethnicity
Central cancer registries gather and collate information about race and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity from self-reported intake questionnaires, abstracted patient records, and linkages to administrative databases. An algorithm was applied to Hispanic ethnicity data to reduce misclassification of Hispanic persons as being of unknown ethnicity [10]. Up to 5 fields were used to record race [11]. Standard algorithms were used to bridge these fields into 4 race groups (White, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Asian or Pacific Islander) to correspond to race data collected on death certificates through 2018 [12]. To reduce misclassification of American Indian or Alaska Native race, central cancer registries link case data according to a certain protocol with the Indian Health Service (IHS) patient registration database. The database contains records of individuals who are members of federally recognized tribes who utilize the IHS/Tribal Health System/Urban Indian Organization healthcare system; cases linked with the IHS database were coded as AI/AN [13]. In this analysis, race and ethnicity data were combined as: non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN), non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander, and Hispanic/Latino including all races.
Population
Age-specific analyses used these grouped categories <50, 50–59, 60–69, 70–79, and ≥80 years.
Metropolitan and non-metropolitan status
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service 2013 vintage rural-urban continuum classification scheme was used to categorize county of residence at diagnosis as metropolitan (rural-urban continuum codes 1–3) or non-metropolitan (rural-urban continuum codes 4–9) [14]. We examined relative cancer survival for metropolitan versus non-metropolitan status by sex, race and ethnicity, age, and cancer type.
Cancer type
Survival was examined by metropolitan and non-metropolitan status for 10 cancer sites. These cancers were chosen based on the 10 most common sites according to rates of new cancer cases in the United States in 2017. Sites include female breast, prostate, lung and bronchus, colon and rectum, corpus and uterus, melanoma of the skin, urinary bladder, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, kidney and renal pelvis, and leukemia.
Statistical methods
Survival
We calculated one- and five-year relative survival for individuals diagnosed with cancer during 2007–2016 with follow-up through 2016 using SEER*Stat 8.3.8 [15]. One-year and five-year relative survival estimates the percentages of persons who did not die from their cancer within one and five years after cancer diagnosis. Relative cancer survival is a ratio of observed to expected survival and was calculated as the observed all-cause survival in a group of individuals with cancer divided by the expected all-cause survival of a similar group of individuals in the general population [16], assuming that cancer deaths were a negligible proportion of all deaths. Expected survival was based on expected life tables stratified by age, sex, race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geography, and year [17, 18]. Relative survival was calculated using the Ederer II actuarial method [16] with the complete analysis approach to include the shorter follow-up time of patients diagnosed in more recent diagnosis years [19]. To allow for informal comparisons, without specifying a referent group, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for survival estimates are presented. Survival between groups was described as different if 95% CIs did not overlap.
Results
Among persons with cancer diagnosed during 2007–2016 (N = 12,080,554), the overall one-year and five-year relative survival was 80.6% and 67.4%, respectively (Table 1).
Table 1. Overall relative survival cancer survival- United States, 2007–2016a.
| Cumulative | n | Relative | 95% lower | 95% upper | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| One-year | 12,080,554 | 80.6% | 80.6% | 80.6% | |
| Two-year | 12,080,554 | 74.5% | 74.4% | 74.5% | |
| Three-year | 12,080,554 | 71.1% | 71.1% | 71.2% | |
| Four-year | 12,080,554 | 69.0% | 68.9% | 69.0% | |
| Five-year | 12,080,554 | 67.4% | 67.4% | 67.4% | |
| Sex | |||||
| Male | One-year | 6,181,602 | 79.5% | 79.5% | 79.5% |
| Five-year | 6,181,602 | 66.7% | 66.6% | 66.7% | |
| Female | One-year | 5,898,952 | 81.8% | 81.7% | 81.8% |
| Five-year | 5,898,952 | 68.2% | 68.1% | 68.2% | |
| Race/Ethnicity b | |||||
| Non-Hispanic White | One-year | 9,172,677 | 80.5% | 80.4% | 80.5% |
| Five-year | 9,172,677 | 67.5% | 67.5% | 67.6% | |
| Non-Hispanic Black | One-year | 1,376,188 | 78.4% | 78.4% | 78.5% |
| Five-year | 1,376,188 | 62.7% | 62.6% | 62.8% | |
| Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native | One-year | 66,854 | 77.3% | 77.0% | 77.7% |
| Five-year | 66,854 | 62.1% | 61.6% | 62.5% | |
| Non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander | One-year | 363,145 | 82.5% | 82.4% | 82.7% |
| Five-year | 363,145 | 67.9% | 67.7% | 68.1% | |
| Hispanic (All Races) | One-year | 953,726 | 82.2% | 82.1% | 82.3% |
| Five-year | 953,726 | 68.6% | 68.5% | 68.7% | |
| Age | |||||
| <50 years | One-year | 1,851,216 | 91.9% | 91.9% | 91.9% |
| Five-year | 1,851,216 | 81.0% | 80.9% | 81.0% | |
| 50–59 years | One-year | 2,510,522 | 85.4% | 85.3% | 85.4% |
| Five-year | 2,510,522 | 71.8% | 71.7% | 71.8% | |
| 60–69 years | One-year | 3,439,770 | 82.7% | 82.6% | 82.7% |
| Five-year | 3,439,770 | 69.4% | 69.3% | 69.5% | |
| 70–79 years | One-year | 2,641,580 | 76.2% | 76.1% | 76.2% |
| Five-year | 2,641,580 | 62.1% | 62.0% | 62.2% | |
| 80+ years | One-year | 1,637,466 | 62.9% | 62.8% | 62.9% |
| Five-year | 1,637,466 | 48.2% | 48.0% | 48.3% |
a Data were compiled from 45 population-based cancer registries that participate in the National Program of Cancer registries, meet the data-quality standards for inclusion in U.S. Cancer Statistics, and meet the criteria for inclusion in the survival data set, which covers approximately 94% of the U.S. population.
b Racial and ethnic groups are mutually exclusive. Hispanic persons can be any race.
One-year relative survival was 79.5% among males and 81.8% among females. Relative survival from one to five years decreased 12.8 percentage points (79.5% to 66.7%) among males and 13.6 percentage points (81.8% to 68.2%) among females.
One-year relative survival differed by race and ethnicity: 82.5% for non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander persons, 82.2% for Hispanic persons, 80.5% for non-Hispanic White persons, 78.4% for non-Hispanic Black persons, and 77.3% for non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native persons. Relative survival from one to five years decreased 15.7 percentage points among non-Hispanic Black persons (78.4% to 62.7%), 15.2 among non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native persons (77.3% to 62.1%), 14.6 among non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander persons (82.5% to 67.9%), 13.6 among Hispanic persons (82.2% to 68.6%) and 13.0 among non-Hispanic White persons (80.5% to 67.5%).
One-year relative survival declined with increasing age: 91.9% among persons 50 years of age or younger, 85.4% among persons aged 50–59 years, 82.7% among persons aged 60–69 years, 76.2% among persons aged 70–79 years, and 62.9% among persons aged 80 years or older. Relative survival from one to five years decreased 10.9 percentage points among persons 50 years of age or younger, 13.6 percentage points among persons aged 50–59 years, 13.3 percentage points among persons aged 60–69 years, 14.1 percentage points among persons aged 70–79 years, and 14.7 percentage points among persons aged 80 years or older.
Metropolitan and non-metropolitan status
One-year relative survival was 81.1% for persons living in metropolitan counties and 77.8% among persons living in non-metropolitan counties. Relative survival from one to five years decreased 13.0 percentage points (81.1% to 68.1%) among persons living in metropolitan counties and 14.2 percentage points (77.8% to 63.6%) among persons living in non-metropolitan counties (Table 2).
Table 2. Relative survival by metropolitan and non-metropolitan statusa by sex, race/ethnicityb, and age- United States, 2007–2016c.
| Metropolitan | non-Metropolitan | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Relative | 95% lower | 95% upper | n | Relative | 95% lower | 95% upper | ||
| Total | One-year | 10,114,432 | 81.1% | 81.1% | 81.2% | 1,959,573 | 77.8% | 77.8% | 77.9% |
| Five-year | 10,114,432 | 68.1% | 68.1% | 68.2% | 1,959,573 | 63.6% | 63.5% | 63.7% | |
| Sex | |||||||||
| Male | One-year | 5,134,339 | 80.1% | 80.0% | 80.1% | 1,043,276 | 76.6% | 76.5% | 76.7% |
| Five-year | 5,134,339 | 67.5% | 67.4% | 67.5% | 1,043,276 | 62.6% | 62.5% | 62.8% | |
| Female | One-year | 4,980,093 | 82.2% | 82.2% | 82.3% | 916,297 | 79.3% | 79.2% | 79.4% |
| Five-year | 4,980,093 | 68.8% | 68.7% | 68.9% | 916,297 | 64.6% | 64.5% | 64.7% | |
| Race/Ethnicity | |||||||||
| Non-Hispanic White | One-year | 7,456,195 | 81.1% | 81.0% | 81.1% | 1,713,027 | 77.9% | 77.9% | 78.0% |
| Five-year | 7,456,195 | 68.4% | 68.3% | 68.4% | 1,713,027 | 63.8% | 63.7% | 63.9% | |
| Non-Hispanic Black | One-year | 1,228,955 | 78.8% | 78.7% | 78.9% | 146,570 | 75.4% | 75.2% | 75.7% |
| Five-year | 1,228,955 | 63.2% | 63.1% | 63.3% | 146,570 | 58.3% | 57.9% | 58.6% | |
| Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native | One-year | 38,277 | 78.7% | 78.3% | 79.2% | 28,507 | 75.4% | 74.8% | 75.9% |
| Five-year | 38,277 | 63.8% | 63.1% | 64.4% | 28,507 | 59.7% | 59.0% | 60.5% | |
| Non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander | One-year | 356,441 | 82.6% | 82.5% | 82.7% | 6,642 | 79.5% | 78.5% | 80.5% |
| Five-year | 356,441 | 68.0% | 67.8% | 68.2% | 6,642 | 63.2% | 61.7% | 64.6% | |
| Hispanic (All Races) | One-year | 903,683 | 82.4% | 82.3% | 82.5% | 49,841 | 78.7% | 78.3% | 79.1% |
| Five-year | 903,683 | 68.9% | 68.7% | 69.0% | 49,841 | 63.6% | 63.0% | 64.1% | |
| Age | |||||||||
| <50 years | One-year | 1,606,470 | 92.2% | 92.1% | 92.2% | 243,771 | 89.9% | 89.8% | 90.0% |
| Five-year | 1,606,470 | 81.5% | 81.4% | 81.6% | 243,771 | 77.5% | 77.3% | 77.7% | |
| 50–59 years | One-year | 2,123,080 | 85.9% | 85.8% | 85.9% | 386,192 | 82.5% | 82.4% | 82.6% |
| Five-year | 2,123,080 | 72.6% | 72.5% | 72.6% | 386,192 | 67.4% | 67.3% | 67.6% | |
| 60–69 years | One-year | 2,853,135 | 83.2% | 83.1% | 83.2% | 584,714 | 80.1% | 80.0% | 80.2% |
| Five-year | 2,853,135 | 70.2% | 70.1% | 70.2% | 584,714 | 65.7% | 65.5% | 65.8% | |
| 70–79 years | One-year | 2,165,848 | 76.7% | 76.6% | 76.7% | 474,243 | 73.9% | 73.8% | 74.0% |
| Five-year | 2,165,848 | 62.7% | 62.6% | 62.8% | 474,243 | 59.3% | 59.1% | 59.5% | |
| 80+ years | One-year | 1,365,899 | 63.1% | 63.0% | 63.1% | 270,653 | 61.8% | 61.6% | 62.0% |
| Five-year | 1,365,899 | 48.4% | 48.2% | 48.5% | 270,653 | 47.0% | 46.7% | 47.4% | |
a The U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service 2013 vintage rural-urban continuum classification scheme was used to categorize county of residence at diagnosis as metropolitan (rural-urban continuum codes 1–3) or non-metropolitan (rural-urban continuum codes 4–9).
b Racial and ethnic groups are mutually exclusive. Hispanic persons can be any race.
c Data were compiled from 45 population-based cancer registries that participate in the National Program of Cancer registries, meet the data-quality standards for inclusion in U.S. Cancer Statistics, and meet the criteria for inclusion in the survival data set, which covers approximately 94% of the U.S. population.
Females living in metropolitan areas had the highest one- and five-year (82.2% and 68.8%) relative survival compared to males living in metropolitan areas and to males and females living in non-metropolitan counties.
By race and ethnicity, one-year relative survival was highest among non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander persons living in metropolitan counties (82.6%) and lowest among non-Hispanic Black persons (75.4%) and non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native persons (75.4%) living in non-metropolitan counties (Fig 1).
Fig 1. Five-year relative cancer survival by metropolitan and non-metropolitan statusa by race-ethnicity United States, 2007–2016c.
This displays five-year relative cancer survival by metropolitan and non-metropolitan status by race/ethnicity in the United States during 2007–2016. a The U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service 2013 vintage rural-urban continuum classification scheme was used to categorize county of residence at diagnosis as metropolitan (rural-urban continuum codes 1–3) or non-metropolitan (rural-urban continuum codes 4–9). b Racial and ethnic groups are mutually exclusive. Hispanic persons can be any race. c Data were compiled from 45 population-based cancer registries that participate in the National Program of Cancer registries, meet the data-quality standards for inclusion in U.S. Cancer Statistics, and meet the criteria for inclusion in the survival data set, which covers approximately 94% of the U.S. population. d Error bars show 95% CIs.
Persons aged 50 years or younger living in metropolitan counites had the highest one- and five-year relative survival (92.2% and 81.5%) compared to persons of other age groups living in metropolitan and non-metropolitan counites.
Compared to persons living in metropolitan counties, those who lived in non-metropolitan counties had lower five-year relative survival for many common cancers including female breast, prostate, lung, colon and rectum, melanoma, urinary bladder, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, kidney and renal pelvis, and leukemia but similar relative survival for corpus uterus cancers (Table 3).
Table 3. Relative survival for 10 most common cancer sitesa by metropolitan and non-metropolitan statusb- United States, 2007–2016c.
| Metropolitan | non-Metropolitan | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cancer site | n | Relative | 95% lower | 95% upper | n | Relative | 95% lower | 95% upper | |
| Female breast | One-year | 2,324,789 | 97.4% | 97.4% | 97.4% | 404,040 | 96.8% | 96.7% | 96.9% |
| Five-year | 2,324,789 | 89.8% | 89.7% | 89.8% | 404,040 | 88.3% | 88.2% | 88.5% | |
| Prostate | One-year | 1,479,825 | 99.4% | 99.4% | 99.4% | 278,975 | 99.2% | 99.1% | 99.3% |
| Five-year | 1,479,825 | 98.9% | 98.9% | 99.0% | 278,975 | 98.3% | 98.1% | 98.5% | |
| Lung and bronchus | One-year | 1,941,581 | 45.6% | 45.5% | 45.7% | 462,844 | 42.5% | 42.4% | 42.7% |
| Five-year | 1,941,581 | 19.5% | 19.5% | 19.6% | 462,844 | 16.4% | 16.3% | 16.6% | |
| Colon and rectum | One-year | 1,438,097 | 83.3% | 83.2% | 83.4% | 311,669 | 82.1% | 82.0% | 82.3% |
| Five-year | 1,438,097 | 65.2% | 65.1% | 65.3% | 311,669 | 63.6% | 63.4% | 63.9% | |
| Corpus and uterus | One-year | 337,429 | 92.4% | 92.3% | 92.5% | 61,848 | 92.2% | 92.0% | 92.5% |
| Five-year | 337,429 | 82.4% | 82.2% | 82.6% | 61,848 | 82.3% | 81.8% | 82.7% | |
| Melanoma of the skin | One-year | 633,786 | 97.1% | 97.0% | 97.1% | 118,247 | 96.2% | 96.0% | 96.3% |
| Five-year | 633,786 | 91.4% | 91.3% | 91.5% | 118,247 | 88.9% | 88.6% | 89.2% | |
| Urinary bladder | One-year | 642,465 | 89.5% | 89.5% | 89.6% | 134,488 | 88.9% | 88.7% | 89.1% |
| Five-year | 642,465 | 78.2% | 78.0% | 78.4% | 134,488 | 76.2% | 75.9% | 76.6% | |
| non-Hodgkin lymphoma | One-year | 643,977 | 81.9% | 81.8% | 82.0% | 120,517 | 80.3% | 80.1% | 80.5% |
| Five-year | 643,977 | 71.0% | 70.9% | 71.2% | 120,517 | 68.1% | 67.7% | 68.4% | |
| Kidney and renal pelvis | One-year | 343,537 | 87.1% | 87.0% | 87.2% | 70,863 | 85.0% | 84.7% | 85.3% |
| Five-year | 343,537 | 76.4% | 76.2% | 76.6% | 70,863 | 72.9% | 72.5% | 73.4% | |
| Leukemia | One-year | 287,323 | 77.6% | 77.4% | 77.7% | 54,806 | 74.7% | 74.3% | 75.1% |
| Five-year | 287,323 | 63.4% | 63.1% | 63.6% | 54,806 | 60.5% | 59.9% | 61.0% | |
a Top 10 cancer sites according to rates of new cancer cases in the United States in 2017.
b The U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service 2013 vintage rural-urban continuum classification scheme was used to categorize county of residence at diagnosis as metropolitan (rural-urban continuum codes 1–3) or non-metropolitan (rural-urban continuum codes 4–9).
c Data were compiled from 45 population-based cancer registries that participate in the National Program of Cancer registries, meet the data-quality standards for inclusion in U.S. Cancer Statistics, and meet the criteria for inclusion in the survival data set, which covers approximately 94% of the U.S. population.
Discussion
This study used the largest population database available to examine one-year and five-year relative survival among persons diagnosed with cancer in the United States during 2007–2016. It found that females diagnosed with any cancer had a higher one-year and five-year relative survival compared to males. During 2012 to 2016, cancer incidence rates were stable among males and increased among females [1]; whereas, death rates among both males and females decreased [1]. For cancers that affect both men and women, such as lung and colorectal cancer, women were more likely to be diagnosed at an earlier stage compared to men [20]. Studies have found persons diagnosed at an earlier stage have a higher survival [21–23]. Additionally, the types of cancers that comprise “all cancers combined” differ between males and females; historically, a higher proportion of cancers among males are linked with smoking or occupational exposures, these cancers tend to have lower survival [24].
We found one-year relative survival was highest among non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander persons and five-year relative survival was highest among Hispanic persons. One-year and five-year relative survival was lowest among non-Hispanic AI/AN and Black persons. Differences in survival among racial and ethnic groups may be explained by access to high-quality care. Self-reported mammography use from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) has typically shown less use of mammography among AI/AN women [25, 26]. Per capita funding for the Indian Health Service, the primary system through which many AI/AN persons access their health care, was $3099 in 2015 compared to $8097 for the US general population [27]. Lack of funding and access to care may contribute to lower relative survival we observed among non-Hispanic AI/AN persons.
Previous studies have examined the differences in cancer death rates among White and Black populations and have found it has narrowed for all cancers combined in men and women [28]. However, the racial disparity remains unchanged for colon and rectal cancer in men, cancers for which incidence and mortality are largely influenced by being screened and access to screening and treatment [29]. Several studies have indicated similar survival by race among patients who receive the same cancer care in clinical trials, suggesting that differences in receiving cancer care may be responsible for racial disparities in survival [29, 30].These differences may include being more likely to be diagnosed at advanced stage of cancer; less likely to be receive standard treatment; and longer delays in diagnosis, follow-up, and treatment [31].
Cancer screening can potentially lengthen the survival interval due to lead time bias, as well as identify relatively slow-growing cancers that have good prognoses [32]. When examining the difference in treatment for leading cancer sites, Zhang et al. [31] found that Black patients were less likely to receive treatment in all cancers except esophageal cancer possibly due to a shortage of medical centers. Lack of access to existing medical centers due to geographic or financial barriers may also contribute, in part, to these disparities. Addressing health disparities caused by differing access to screening and treatment availability may help increase survival among Black cancer patients compared to other racial and ethnic groups.
Relative survival was highest among younger persons. As with sex, this could be due to the mix of cancers diagnosed among younger patients. Additionally, older persons who are diagnosed with cancer often suffer from comorbid chronic conditions and geriatric syndromes which can contribute to the complex treatment decision process [33]. The evidence base for treating older persons is sparse due to underrepresentation in clinical trials, and trials focusing on treatment in older persons are rare [34]. Underrepresentation of older persons in cancer clinical trials means that clinicians have less evidence on how to treat these patients [35]. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has made recommendations for improving the evidence base for treating older adults with cancer which include using clinical trials, leveraging research designs and infrastructure, increasing the authority of the US Food and Drug Administration to incentivize and require research, increasing clinician recruitment of older adults, and using journal policies to incentivize researchers to consistently report on the age distribution and health risk profiles of research participants [35].
We found that persons who lived in non-metropolitan counties had lower survival than those who lived in metropolitan counties, and this difference persisted across sex, race and ethnicity, age, and most cancer types. A recent study showed that rural patients enrolled in clinical trials had similar survival as those who lived in metropolitan areas, suggesting that improving access to high quality treatment may decrease disparities [36]. However, cancer patients living in non-metropolitan areas may not have the same access to these clinical trials. Cancer patients living in non-metropolitan areas often face substantial barriers to receiving optimal treatment, including availability of cancer care providers, distance to services, lack of public transportation, financial barriers, and limited access to clinical trials [37]. Cancer patients living in non-metropolitan areas often have to travel longer distances to get cancer care, such as diagnostic testing, follow-up, and treatment, and may delay or skip getting the care they need. In addition to closures of many rural hospitals, rural hospital or clinics may have fewer resources such as auxiliary or specialty staff and state-of-the-art medical equipment [38].
An ASCO study estimated that 11.6% of oncologists practice in non-metropolitan areas [39]. Improving access to preventive care and treatment for individuals living in non-metropolitan areas may increase survival for individuals diagnosed with cancer in non-metropolitan areas. Residents of non-metropolitan areas also experience comorbid chronic conditions as frequently, if not more, than their urban counterparts [40]. Data from the National Health Interview Survey indicate that cancer survivors in rural areas are more likely to smoke and less likely to be physically active than those in metropolitan areas, which may lead to poorer cancer outcomes [41–43]. Programs that promote smoking cessation, physical activity, and other healthy behaviors may improve survival.
Findings of this study are subject to at least three limitations. First, a higher relative survival might not equate to a lower mortality rate [44]. Results of this study show the percentages of persons who did not die from their cancer within one and five years after cancer diagnosis. Persons with a cancer diagnosis may have died from other causes. Second, although increasing survival over time reflects progress in treating many cancer types, survival trends for some cancers may be due to biases related to screening and early detection [32]. As aforementioned, cancer screening can potentially lengthen the survival interval due to lead time bias [32]. Third, there is evidence of the association between socioeconomic deprivation and increased cancer risk [45]. Results should be carefully interpreted.
This analysis provided a high-level overview of contemporary cancer survival in the United States. Further examination of the differences in cancer survival by cancer type or other characteristics might be helpful for identifying potential interventions that could improve long-term outcomes [46]. Programs that target screening and early detection may help increase survival by diagnosing cancers at an early stage and increasing access to treatment. Programs that help cancer survivors access timely cancer treatment and follow-up care, including promoting healthy behaviors, may also improve survival.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the state and regional cancer registry staff and health department personnel for their work in collecting the data used in this study.
Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Data Availability
A public use database is not available. Researchers can contact uscsdata@cdc.gov for instructions for accessing a restricted access database. The email address is an organizational mailbox dedicated to questions about the US Cancer Statistics data and is monitored by a team of people. The data are not publicly available due to privacy and legal restrictions. The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the National Program of Cancer Registries. Data are from a population-based dataset.
Funding Statement
This research was supported in part by an appointment (TD Ellington) to the Research Participation Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an interagency agreement between the US Department of Energy and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
References
- 1.Henley SJ, Ward EM, Scott S, Ma J, Anderson RN, Firth AU, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, part I: National cancer statistics. Cancer. 2020. May 15;126(10):2225–2249. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32802 Epub 2020 Mar 12. ; PMCID: PMC7299151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Henley SJ, Singh SD, King J, Wilson R, O’Neil ME, Ryerson AB. Invasive cancer incidence and survival—United States 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2015;64:237–242. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Measurement of progress against cancer. Extramural Committee to Assess Measures of Progress Against Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1990. May 16; 82(10):825–35. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Jemal A, Ward EM, Johnson CJ, et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975–2014, featuring survival. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(9). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Henley SJ, Singh SD, King J, Wilson RJ, O’Neil ME, Ryerson AB. Invasive Cancer Incidence and Survival—United States, 2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017. Jan 27;66(3):69–75. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6603a1 ; PMCID: PMC5724910 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019. Jan;69(1):7–34. doi: 10.3322/caac.21551 Epub 2019 Jan 8. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Afshar N., English D.R. and Milne R.L. (2019), Rural–urban residence and cancer survival in high‐income countries: A systematic review. Cancer, 125: 2172–2184. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32073 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Wilson RJ, Ryerson AB, Zhang K, Dong X. Relative survival analysis using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Program of Cancer Registries surveillance system data, 2000–2007. J Registry Manag 2014;41:72–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.World Health Organization. International classification of diseases for oncology, third edition, first revision. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014. [Google Scholar]
- 10.NAACCR Race and Ethnicity Work Group. NAACCR Guideline for Enhancing Hispanic/Latino Identification: Revised NAACCR Hispanic/Latino Identification Algorithm [NHIA v2.2.1]. Springfield (IL): North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. September 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Adamo M, Groves C, Dickie L, Ruhl J. (September 2020). SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2021. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute. [Google Scholar]
- 12.National Center for Health Statistics. Vintage 2019 postcensal estimates of the resident population of the United States (April 1, 2010, July 1, 2010-July 1, 2019), by year, county, single-year of age (0, 1, 2,.., 85 years and over), bridged race, Hispanic origin, and sex. Prepared under a collaborative arrangement with the U.S. Census Bureau. Available from: /nchs/nvss/bridged_race.htm as of July 9, 2020, following release by the U.S. Census Bureau of the unbridged Vintage 2019 postcensal estimates by 5-year age group on June 25, 2020.
- 13.U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. U.S. Cancer Statistics Data Visualizations Tool Technical Notes: Interpreting Race and Ethnicity in Cancer Data. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute; https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/uscs/pdf/uscs-data-visualizations-tool-technical-notes-h.pdf,June, 2020.
- 14.USDA United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Rural Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC). Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes/
- 15.National Cancer Institute. SEER*Stat software. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, Surveillance Research Program; 2020. SEER*Stat Software (cancer.gov)
- 16.Ederer F, Axtell LM, Cutler SJ. The relative survival rate: a statistical methodology. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1961;6:101–121. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. SEER*Stat Database: Expected Survival—U.S. by SES/Geography/Race (NHW, NHB, NHAIAN, NHAPI, HISP) 1992–2016, Ages 0–99, State-County (Modeled by Varied State-County-SES), National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch. https://seer.cancer.gov/expsurvival/ [Google Scholar]
- 18.Mariotto AB, Zou Z, Johnson CJ, Scoppa S, Weir HK, Huang B. Geographical, racial and socio-economic variation in life expectancy in the US and their impact on cancer relative survival. PLOS One 2018; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Brenner H, Rachet B. Hybrid analysis for up-to-date long-term survival rates in cancer registries with delayed recording of incident cases. Eur J Cancer. 2004. Nov;40(16):2494–501. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2004.07.022 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Miller D, Brest A, Yu M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2017, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2017/, based on November 2019 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2020. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Cronin KA, Lake AJ, Scott S, et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, part I: National cancer statistics. Cancer. 2018;124(13):2785–2800. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31551 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.White A, Joseph D, Rim SH, Johnson CJ, Coleman MP, Allemani C. Colon cancer survival in the United States by race and stage (2001–2009): Findings from the CONCORD-2 study. Cancer. 2017. Dec 15;123 Suppl 24(Suppl 24):5014–5036. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31076 ; PMCID: PMC6152891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Jemal A, Ward EM, Johnson CJ, et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975–2014, Featuring Survival. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(9):djx030. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djx030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Ward EM, Sherman RL, Henley SJ, Jemal A, Siegel DA, Feuer EJ, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1999–2015, featuring cancer in men and women ages 20–49. J Natl Cancer Institute 2019; pii: djz106. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Roubidoux MA. Breast cancer and screening in American Indian and Alaska Native women. J Cancer Educ. 2012. Apr;27(1 Suppl):S66–72. doi: 10.1007/s13187-012-0323-6 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Miller JW, King JB, Joseph DA, Richardson LC; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Breast cancer screening among adult women—Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States, 2010. MMWR Suppl. 2012. Jun 15;61(2):46–50. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Guadagnolo BA, Petereit DG, Coleman CN. Cancer Care Access and Outcomes for American Indian Populations in the United States: Challenges and Models for Progress. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2017;27(2):143–149. doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2016.11.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.DeSantis CE, Siegel RL, Sauer AG, Miller KD, Fedewa SA, Alcaraz KI, et al. Cancer statistics for African Americans, 2016: Progress and opportunities in reducing racial disparities. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016. Jul;66(4):290–308. doi: 10.3322/caac.21340 Epub 2016 Feb 22. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Ailawadhi S, Jacobus S, Sexton R, Stewart AK, Dispenzieri A, Hussein MA, et al. Disease and outcome disparities in multiple myeloma: exploring the role of race/ethnicity in the Cooperative Group clinical trials. Blood Cancer J. 2018. Jul 6;8(7):67. doi: 10.1038/s41408-018-0102-7 ; PMCID: PMC6035273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Siddiqui F, Bae K, Langer CJ, Coyne JC, Gamerman V, Komaki R, et al. The influence of gender, race, and marital status on survival in lung cancer patients: analysis of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trials. J Thorac Oncol. 2010. May;5(5):631–9. doi: 10.1097/jto.0b013e3181d5e46a . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Zhang C, Zhang C, Wang Q, Li Z, Lin J, Wang H. Differences in Stage of Cancer at Diagnosis, Treatment, and Survival by Race and Ethnicity Among Leading Cancer Types. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(4):e202950. Published 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.2950 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Croswell JM, Ransohoff DF, Kramer BS. Principles of cancer screening: Lessons from history and study design issues. Semin Oncol. 2010;37(3):202–215. doi: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2010.05.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Soto-Perez-de-Celis E, Li D, Yuan Y, Lau YM, Hurria A. Functional versus chronological age: geriatric assessments to guide decision making in older patients with cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2018. Jun;19(6):e305–e316. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30348-6 Epub 2018 Jun 1. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Dale W, Mohile SG, Eldadah BA, et al. Biological, clinical, and psychosocial correlates at the interface of cancer and aging research J Natl Cancer Inst 104: 581–589,2012. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djs145 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Hurria A, Levit LA, Dale W, Mohile SG, Muss HB, Fehrenbacher L, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Improving the Evidence Base for Treating Older Adults With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement. J Clin Oncol. 2015. Nov 10;33(32):3826–33. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0319 Epub 2015 Jul 20. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Unger JM, Moseley A, Symington B, Chavez-MacGregor M, Ramsey SD, Hershman DL. Geographic Distribution and Survival Outcomes for Rural Patients With Cancer Treated in Clinical Trials. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(4):e181235. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1235 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Charlton M, Schlichting J, Chioreso C, Ward M, Vikas P. Challenges of Rural Cancer Care in the United States. Oncology (Williston Park). 2015. Sep;29(9):633–40. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Kozhimannil KB, Henning-Smith C. Improving Health Among Rural Residents in the US. JAMA. 2021;325(11):1033–1034. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.26372 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.2020 Snapshot: State of the Oncology Workforce in America. JCO Oncol Pract. 2021. Jan;17(1):30. doi: 10.1200/OP.20.00577 Epub 2020 Aug 24. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Meit M, Knudson A, Gilbert T, et al. The 2014 update of the rural-urban chartbook. Rural Health Reform Policy Research Center. https://ruralhealth.und.edu/projects/health-reform-policy-research-center/pdf/2014-rural-urban-chartbook-update.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 41.Weaver KE, Palmer N, Lu L, Case LD, Geiger AM. Rural-urban differences in health behaviors and implications for health status among US cancer survivors. Cancer Causes Control. 2013. Aug;24(8):1481–90. doi: 10.1007/s10552-013-0225-x Epub 2013 May 16. ; PMCID: PMC3730816. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Barbaric M, Brooks E, Moore L, Cheifetz O. Effects of physical activity on cancer survival: a systematic review. Physiother Can. 2010. Winter;62(1):25–34. doi: 10.3138/physio.62.1.25 Epub 2010 Feb 22. ; PMCID: PMC2841550. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Posadzki P., Pieper D., Bajpai R. et al. Exercise/physical activity and health outcomes: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews. BMC Public Health 20, 1724 (2020). doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09855-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Welch HG, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Are increasing 5-year survival rates evidence of success against cancer? JAMA 2000;283:2975–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.22.2975 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Greenlee RT, Howe HL. County-level poverty and distant stage cancer in the United States. Cancer Causes Control. 2009. Aug;20(6):989–1000. doi: 10.1007/s10552-009-9299-x Epub 2009 Feb 7. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Siegel DA, Richardson LC, Henley SJ, Wilson RJ, Dowling NF, Weir HK, et al. Buchanan Lunsford N. Pediatric cancer mortality and survival in the United States, 2001–2016. Cancer. 2020. Oct 1;126(19):4379–4389. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33080 Epub 2020 Jul 29. . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
A public use database is not available. Researchers can contact uscsdata@cdc.gov for instructions for accessing a restricted access database. The email address is an organizational mailbox dedicated to questions about the US Cancer Statistics data and is monitored by a team of people. The data are not publicly available due to privacy and legal restrictions. The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the National Program of Cancer Registries. Data are from a population-based dataset.