ISPO

Published in Cancer Detection and Prevention 2004; 28(2):143-154.

Secular trends in cancer mortality, California 1970­1998

Kiumarss Nasseri, DVM, MPH, PhD

Tri-Counties Cancer Surveillance Program, Public Health Institute, 524 West Pueblo Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93105, USA

Background: Monitoring mortality is a meaningful way to evaluate the effectiveness of cancer control activities. Results of trend analysis for cancer related deaths by race/ethnicity in California from 1970 to 1998 are reported here. Methods: Age-adjusted cancer mortality rates in California were used in the analysis of secular trends. Mortality patterns for selected cancers in all races combined are compared with similar patterns in the US for 1973­1998. Results: The overall cancer mortality rates in California began to decline in 1987 in both men and women. Although mortality trends by site, sex, and race/ethnicity showed significant variations, the overall pattern in California is heavily influenced by trends for the non-Hispanic white (NHW) population and is very similar to the patterns in the US with minor differences in the magnitude and trend. Conclusions: This is the first time that secular trends in cancer mortality for California are presented by race and ethnicity. Despite notable racial differences, the overall trend follows a declining pattern. Detailed explanation of the reasons behind the observed patterns is not included in this report. Some of the differences between California and the US, however, can be explained by differences in the racial and ethnic composition of the two populations. Approximately 45% of the California population has Hispanic (HSP) or Asian origins among whom cancer mortality rates are substantially lower. Another factor is the difference in the intensity and coverage of cancer related activities such as tobacco control. Prevalence of smoking in California is much lower than the rest of the US.

KEY WORDS: Cancer mortality, Secular trend, Descriptive epidemiology, Epidemiology, California, Joinpoint.

http://www.cancerprev.org/Journal/Issues/28/2/4872