» Articles » PMID: 19411096

Mortality Rates Due to Gynecologic Cancers in New York State by Demographic Factors and Proximity to a Gynecologic Oncology Group Member Treatment Center: 1979-2001

Overview
Journal Gynecol Oncol
Date 2009 May 5
PMID 19411096
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To describe trends in mortality rates, in New York State, due to cervical, endometrial and ovarian cancer and to assess how these rates varied with proximity to a comprehensive cancer treatment center or population density (rural/urban).

Methods: Data were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s Compressed Mortality Files, Census Bureau records, and online maps. Poisson regression models were fitted to estimate death rates (mean number of deaths per 100,000 women per year) due to gynecologic cancer type. Trends in death rates were compared with respect to driving time to the nearest comprehensive cancer treatment center and population density, controlling for race, county income level, and age at death.

Results: Cervical and endometrial but not ovarian death rates declined over time. For both cervical and endometrial cancers, death rates varied significantly with driving time and between rural and urban counties. In the case of cervical cancer, the decline over time was steeper in rural than in urban counties. For endometrial cancer, the decline steepened with increasing distance from a treatment center.

Conclusion: Improvements in cervical and endometrial cancer mortality from 1979 to 2001 followed increases in gynecologic cancer treatment research efforts, number of specialists trained to treat such cases, and in the emphasis on gynecologic cancer in the training of physicians in general. Our results are consistent with an interpretation that the progressive actions by leaders in the gynecologic oncology profession during the late 1960's and early 1970's contributed to improvements in mortality rates in subsequent decades.

Citing Articles

Screening log: Challenges in community patient recruitment for gynecologic oncology clinical trials.

Ratnaparkhi R, Doolittle G, Krebill H, Springer M, Calhoun E, Jewell A Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2024; 42:101379.

PMID: 39421148 PMC: 11483309. DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101379.


A qualitative study on the impact of long-distance travel for gynecologic cancer care.

Mujumdar V, Butler T, Shalowitz D Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2021; 38:100868.

PMID: 34692967 PMC: 8511836. DOI: 10.1016/j.gore.2021.100868.


A look at the gynecologic oncologist workforce - Are we meeting patient demand?.

Ackroyd S, Shih Y, Kim B, Lee N, Halpern M Gynecol Oncol. 2021; 163(2):229-236.

PMID: 34456058 PMC: 8585725. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.08.013.


Global, Regional, and National Burden of Endometrial Cancer, 1990-2017: Results From the Global Burden of Disease Study, 2017.

Zhang S, Gong T, Liu F, Jiang Y, Sun H, Ma X Front Oncol. 2020; 9:1440.

PMID: 31921687 PMC: 6930915. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01440.


Real-World Impact of Survival by Period of Diagnosis in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Between 1990 and 2014.

Wu S, Wang J, Sun J, He Z, Zhang W, Zhou J Front Oncol. 2019; 9:639.

PMID: 31448220 PMC: 6691118. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00639.