Dataset Information

A Population Health Assessment in a Community Cancer Center Catchment Area: Triple-Negative Breast Cancer, Alcohol Use, and Obesity in New Castle County, Delaware.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The NCI requires designated cancer centers to conduct catchment area assessments to guide cancer control and prevention efforts designed to reduce the local cancer burden. We extended and adapted this approach to a community cancer center catchment area with elevated rates of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Methods

Cancer registry data for 462 TNBC and 2,987 "Not-TNBC" cases diagnosed between 2012 and 2020 at the Helen F. Graham Cancer Center & Research Institute (HFGCCRI), located in New Castle County, Delaware, were geocoded to detect areas of elevated risk (hot spots) and decreased risk (cold spots). Next, electronic health record (EHR) data on obesity and alcohol use disorder (AUD) and catchment area measures of fast-food and alcohol retailers were used to assess for spatial relationships between TNBC hot spots and potentially modifiable risk factors.

Results

Two hot and two cold spots were identified for TNBC within the catchment area. The hot spots accounted for 11% of the catchment area but nearly a third of all TNBC cases. Higher rates of unhealthy alcohol use and obesity were observed within the hot spots.

Conclusions

The use of spatial methods to analyze cancer registry and other secondary data sources can inform cancer control and prevention efforts within community cancer center catchment areas, where limited resources can preclude the collection of new primary data.

Impact

Targeting community outreach and engagement activities to TNBC hot spots offers the potential to reduce the population-level burden of cancer efficiently and equitably.

SUBMITTER: Siegel SD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8755608 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Healthcare facilities (HF) may identify catchment areas (CA) by selecting criteria that depend on various factors. These refer to hospital activities, geographical definition, patient covariates, and more. The analyses that were traditionally pursued have a limiting factor in the consideration of only static conditions. Instead, some of the CA determinants involve influences occurring at both temporal and spatial scales. The study of CA in the cancer context means choosing between HF, usually divided into general hospitals versus oncological centers (OCs). In the CA context, electronic health records (EHRs) promise to be a valuable source of information, one driving the next-generation patient-driven clinical decision support systems. Among the challenges, digital health requires the re-definition of a role of stochastic modeling to deal with emerging complexities from data heterogeneity. To model CA with cancer EHR, we have chosen a computational framework centered on a logistic model, as a reference, and on a multivariate statistical approach. We also provided a battery of tests for CA assessment. Our results indicate that a more refined CA model's structure yields superior discrimination power between health facilities. The increased significance was also visualized by comparative evaluations with ad hoc geo-localized maps. Notably, a cancer-specific spatial effect can be noticed, especially for breast cancer and through OCs. To mitigate the data distributional influences, bootstrap analysis was performed, and gains in some cancer-specific and spatially concentrated regions were obtained. Finally, when the temporal dynamics are assessed along a 3-year timeframe, negligible differential effects appear between predicted probabilities observed between standard critical values and bootstrapped values. In conclusion, for interpreting CA in terms of both spatial and temporal dynamics, sophisticated models are required. The one here proposed suggests that bootstrap can improve test accuracy. We recommend that evidences from stochastic modeling are merged with visual analytics, as this combination may be exploited by policy-makers in support to quantitative CA assessment.

Project description:Importance:The prevalence of extreme obesity continues to increase among adults in the US, yet there is an absence of subnational estimates and geographic description of extreme obesity. This shortcoming prevents a thorough understanding of the geographic distribution of extreme obesity, which in turn limits the ability of public health agencies and policy makers to target areas with a known higher prevalence. Objectives:To use small-area estimation to create county-level estimates of extreme obesity in the US and apply spatial methods to identify clusters of high and low prevalence. Design, Setting, and Participants:A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using multilevel regression and poststratification with data from the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the US Census Bureau to create prevalence estimates of county-level extreme obesity (body mass index ?40 [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared]). Data were included on adults (aged ?18 years) living in the contiguous US. Analysis was performed from June 4 to December 28, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures:Multilevel logistic regression models estimated the probability of extreme obesity based on individual-level and area-level characteristics. Census counts were multiplied by these probabilities and summed by county to create county-level prevalence estimates. Moran index values were calculated to assess spatial autocorrelation and identify spatial clusters of hot and cold spots. Estimates of moderate obesity were obtained for comparison. Results:Overall, the weighted prevalence of extreme obesity was 4.0% (95% CI, 3.9%-4.1%) and the prevalence of moderate obesity was 23.7% (95% CI, 23.4%-23.9%). County-level prevalence of extreme obesity ranged from 1.3% (95% CI, 1.3%-1.3%) to 15.7% (95% CI, 15.3%-16.0%). The Pearson correlation coefficient comparing model-predicted estimates with direct estimates was 0.81 (P?<?.001). The Moran index I score was 0.35 (P?<?.001), indicating spatial clustering. Significant clusters of high and low prevalence were identified. Hot spots indicating clustering of high prevalence of extreme obesity in several regions, including the Mississippi Delta region and the Southeast, were identified, as well as clusters of low prevalence in the Rocky Mountain region and the Northeast. Conclusions and Relevance:Substantial geographic variation was identified in the prevalence of extreme obesity; there was considerable county-level variation even in states generally known as having high or low prevalence of obesity. The results suggest that extreme obesity prevalence demonstrates spatial dependence and clustering and may support the need for substate analysis and benefit of disaggregation of obesity by group. Findings from this study can inform local and national policies seeking to identify populations most at risk from very high body mass index.