A trend analysis of breast cancer incidence rates in the United States from 2000 to 2009 shows a recent increase
- 889 Downloads
Recent reports have shown that the breast cancer incidence rate in the US stabilized after a sharp reduction in 2002 and 2003. It is important to continue monitoring breast cancer incidence rates according to age group, race/ethnicity, estrogen receptor (ER) status, and tumor stage. Age-standardized breast cancer incidence rates were calculated using data from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results 18 registries from 2000 to 2009, for 677,774 female breast cancer patients aged 20 and above. Jointpoint regression models were used to fit a series of joined straight lines on a log scale to annual age-standardized rates. The incidence rates of all breast cancer significantly increased for non-Hispanic blacks from 2005 to 2009 (annual percentage change, APC = 2.0 %, p = 0.01) and Asian/Pacific Islanders from 2000 to 2009 (APC = 1.2 %, p = 0.02). Since 2004, incidence rates in women aged 40–49 years significantly increased for most racial/ethnic groups (overall APC = 1.1 %, p = 0.001). The incidence rate of carcinoma in situ significantly increased in all racial/ethnic groups, with an APC range from 2.3 to 3.0 % (p < 0.005). The localized breast cancer incidence significantly increased in non-Hispanic blacks (APC = 1.3 %, p = 0.004) and Asians (APC = 1.2 %, p = 0.03). ER-positive breast cancer significantly increased in almost all age/race sub-groups after 2005 (APC by race: non-Hispanic whites 1.5 %, non-Hispanic blacks 4.3 %, Asian/Pacific Islanders 1.7 %, and Hispanics 1.8 %; all p values <0.05), while ER-negative breast cancer decreased in most sub-groups (APC by race: non-Hispanic whites—3.9 %, non-Hispanic blacks—3.7 %, Asian/Pacific Islanders—1.5 %, and Hispanics—4.3 %; all p values <0.05). Recently the incidence of breast cancer appears to be increasing in certain subgroups, including ER-positive, early-stage breast cancers, in particular among non-Hispanic blacks and Asian/Pacific Islanders. Further studies are warranted to examine possible reasons for these changes, such as changes in mammography screening methods and risk factors prevalence.
KeywordsBreast cancer Incidence SEER Race Hormone receptors Subgroup
The authors thank Walmy E. Sveen for her critical reading of the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
There are no potential conflicts of interest.
- 4.Chlebowski RT, Hendrix SL, Langer RD, Stefanick ML, Gass M, Lane D, Rodabough RJ, Gilligan MA, Cyr MG, Thomson CA, Khandekar J, Petrovitch H, McTiernan A (2003) Influence of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer and mammography in healthy postmenopausal women: the Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Trial. JAMA 289(24):3243–3253. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.24.3243 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Eheman C, Henley SJ, Ballard-Barbash R, Jacobs EJ, Schymura MJ, Noone AM, Pan L, Anderson RN, Fulton JE, Kohler BA, Jemal A, Ward E, Plescia M, Ries LA, Edwards BK (2012) Annual Report to the Nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2008, featuring cancers associated with excess weight and lack of sufficient physical activity. Cancer 118(9):2338–2366. doi: 10.1002/cncr.27514 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.SEER-18 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (www.seer.cancer.gov) SEER*Stat Database: Incidence—SEER 18 Regs Research Data, Nov 2011 Sub (1973–2009) < Katrina/Rita Population Adjustment >—Linked To County Attributes—Total U.S., 1969–2010 Counties, National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch, released Apr 2012, based on the Nov 2011 submission
- 16.Nederend J, Duijm LE, Louwman MW, Groenewoud JH, Donkers-van Rossum AB, Voogd AC (2012) Impact of transition from analog screening mammography to digital screening mammography on screening outcome in The Netherlands: a population-based study. Ann Oncol 23(12):3098–3103. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mds146 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.van Ravesteyn NT, Miglioretti DL, Stout NK, Lee SJ, Schechter CB, Buist DS, Huang H, Heijnsdijk EA, Trentham-Dietz A, Alagoz O, Near AM, Kerlikowske K, Nelson HD, Mandelblatt JS, de Koning HJ (2012) Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years: a comparative modeling study of risk. Ann Intern Med 156(9):609–617. doi: 10.1059/0003-4819-156-9-201205010-00002 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Bluekens AM, Holland R, Karssemeijer N, Broeders MJ, den Heeten GJ (2012) Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study. Radiology 265(3):707–714. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12111461 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D’Orsi C, Jong R, Rebner M (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353(17):1773–1783. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa052911 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2002) Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 137(5 Part 1):344–346Google Scholar