RESEARCH PAPER
The association of neighborhood-level social class and tobacco consumption with adverse lung cancer characteristics in Maryland
 
More details
Hide details
1
Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, United States
2
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
3
Maryland Cancer Registry, Baltimore, United States
Publish date: 2019-01-25
 
Tob. Induc. Dis. 2019;17(January):6
KEYWORDS:
TOPICS:
ABSTRACT:
Introduction:
Although both active tobacco use and passive tobacco exposure are well-established as being risk factors for lung cancer, it is challenging to measure tobacco-related exposures at the population level, while considering other factors (gender, race, socioeconomic status) that may modify the relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. Moreover, research to date has focused primarily on relationships between tobacco and endpoints of lung cancer incidence or mortality. Tobacco’s role in disease progression, through association with important disease characteristics such as tumor histological type and grade, and stage of disease at diagnosis, has been less well examined.

Methods:
This research examines associations between area-level tobacco use and social class, as well as individual gender, race and age, and three adverse disease characteristics (tumor type, grade and stage) among incident cases of lung cancer reported to the Maryland Cancer Registry in 2000. Cases were geocoded by residential address. Multi-level logistic regression models included Census block group-level estimates of per capita tobacco spending, from Consumer Expenditure Survey data, and a 4-item social class index, from Census estimates of rates of high school graduation, employment, white collar occupation, and per capita income.

Results:
Analyses of 3223 cases found no significant differences by race, however, results differed by gender. Lower block-group social class and higher tobacco spending were associated with squamous and small cell histological types and poorly differentiated or undifferentiated tumor grade. However, for later stage at diagnosis (SEER stages 2–7), both higher social class and greater tobacco spending were protective, especially for women, suggesting women in high tobacco use communities may benefit from early detection.

Conclusions:
Results support using area-level behavioral data as tools for identifying high risk communities suitable for more resource-intensive research or interventions. Findings also suggest that area-level social resources are consistent drivers of lung cancer disparities, and merit continued research attention.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Ann C. Klassen   
Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, United States
 
REFERENCES (37):
1. Alberg AJ, Ford JG, Samet JM. Epidemiology of Lung Cancer. ACCP Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (2nd Ed). Chest. 2007;132(3 Suppl):29S-55S. doi:10.1378/chest.07.1347.
2. Islami F, Sauer AG, Mille KD et al. Proportion and Number of Cancer Cases and Deaths Attributable to Potentially Modifiable Risk Factors in the United States. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:31-54. doi:10.3322/caac.21440.
3. Williams DR, Kontos EZ, Viswanath K, et al. Integrating Multiple Social Statuses in Health Disparities Research: The Case of Lung Cancer. Health Services Research. 2012;47(3 Pt 2):1255–1277. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01404x.
4. Haiman CA, Stram DO, Wilkens LR, et al. Ethnic and racial differences in the smoking-related risk of lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(4):333-342. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa033250.
5. Gadgeel SM, Kalemkerian GP. Racial Differences in Lung Cancer. Cancer and Metastasis Rev. 2003;22(1):39-46. PMID:12716035.
6. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2018. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2018.
7. Dresler C. The changing epidemiology of lung cancer and occupational and environmental risk factors. Thorac Surg Clin. 2013;23:113-122. doi:10.1016/j.thorsurg.2013.01.015.
8. Sun Z, Aubry M-C, Deschamps C, et al. Histologic grade is an independent prognostic factor for survival in non-small cell lung cancer: an analysis of 5018 hospital and 712 population-based cases. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;131(5):1014-1020. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2005.12.057.
9. Wynder EL, Muscat JE. The changing epidemiology of smoking and lung cancer histology. Environ Health Perspect. 1995;103 (Suppl 8):143-148. PMID: 8741774.
  Pubmed
10. Adami AH, Hunter D, Trichopoulos D. Textbook of Cancer Epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
11. American Cancer Society. Cancer Treatment and Survivorship Facts & Figures 2014-2015. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2014.
12. Tabatabai MA, Kengowoung-Keumo J, Oates GR, et al. Racial and Gender Disparities in Incidence of Lung and Bronchus Cancer in the United States: A Longitudinal Analysis. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(9):e0162949. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162949.
13. Lewis DR, Pickle LW, Zhu L. Recent spatiotemporal patterns of US lung cancer by histologic type. Front Public Health. 2017;5:82. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2017.00082.
14. Klassen AC, Curriero FC, Tabb L, Carroll-Scott A. Spatial Analysis of Communities. In: Burke JM, Albert SM. Methods for Community Public Health Research: Integrated and Engaged Approaches. NY: Springer; 2014.
15. Klassen AC, Pankiewicz A, Hsieh S, Ward A, Curriero FC. The association of area-level social class and tobacco use with adverse breast cancer characteristics among white and black women: evidence from Maryland, 1992-2003. Int J Health Geogr. 2015;(14):13. doi:10.1186/s12942-015-0007-7
16. Jamal A, Phillips E, Gentzke AS, et al. Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults - United States, 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(2):53–59. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6702a1
17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. State Tobacco Activities Tracking & Evaluation (STATE) System. https://www.cdc.gov/statesyste.... Accessed May 28, 2018.
18. Curriero FC, Boscoe F, Kulldorff M, Klassen AC. Using imputation to provide location information for nongeocoded addresses. PLoS One. 2010;5(2):e8998. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008998
19. Torio CM, Klassen AC, Curriero FC, Caballero B, Helzlsouer K. The modifying effect of social class on the relationship between body mass index and breast cancer incidence. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(1):146-151. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.126979
20. Snijders T, Bosker R. Multilevel Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 1999.
21. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata, Third Edition. College Station, TX: Stata Press; 2012.
22. Cressie N. Statistics for Spatial Data. New York: Wiley; 1991.
23. McCullough P, Nelder JA. Generalized Linear Models. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1989.
24. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org. Accessed August 1, 2018.
25. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Annual Cancer Report 2003. Baltimore, MD: Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; 2003.
26. Gnerlich JL, Deshpande AD, Jeffe DB, Sweet A, White N, Margenthaler JA. Elevated breast cancer mortality in women younger than age 40 years compared with older women is attributed to poorer survival in early-stage disease. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208(3):341–347. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.12.001
27. Yeo H, Betel D, Abelson JS, Zheng XE, Yantiss R, Shah MA. Early-onset Colorectal Cancer is Distinct from Traditional Colorectal Cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2017;16(4):293-299.e6. doi:10.1016/j.clcc.2017.06.002
28. El Saghir NS, Seoud M, Khalil MK, et al. Effects of young age at presentation on survival in breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2006;6(1):194. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-6-194
29. Klassen AC, Curriero FC, Hong JH, et al. The role of area-level influences on prostate cancer grade and stage at diagnosis. Prev Med. 2004;39(3):441-448. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.04.031
30. Koutsokera A, Kiagia M, Saif MW, Souliotis K, Syrigos KN. Nutrition habits, physical activity, and lung cancer: an authoritative review. Clin Lung Cancer. 2013;14(4):342-50. doi:10.1016/j.cllc.2012.12.002
31. Mustard CA, Kaufert P, Kozyrsky A, Mayer T. Sex differences in the use of health care services. N Engl J Med. 1998;338(23):1678-1683. doi:10.1056/nejm199806043382307
32. Bertakis KD, Azari R, Helms LJ, Callahan EJ, Robbins JA. Gender Differences in the Utilization of Health Care Services J Family Practice. 2000;49:147.
33. Pepper JK, Brewer NT. Electronic nicotine delivery system (electronic cigarette) awareness, use, reactions and beliefs: a systematic review. Tob Control. 2014;23(5):375-384. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051122
34. Smith RA, von Eschenbach AC, Wender R, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer: update of early detection guidelines for prostate, colorectal, and endometrial cancers. Also: update 2001-testing for early lung cancer detection. CA Cancer J Clin. 2001;51(1):38-75. doi:10.3322/canjclin.51.1.38
35. Clark P. When can group level clustering be ignored? Multilevel models versus single-level models with sparse data. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008;62:752–758. doi:10.1136/jech.2007.060798
36. Hurley S, Hertz A, Nelson DO, et al. Tracing a Path to the Past: Exploring the Use of Commercial Credit Reporting Data to Construct Residential Histories for Epidemiologic Studies of Environmental Exposures. Am J Epidemiol. 2017;185(3):238-246. doi:10.1093/aje/kww108
37. Wheeler DC, Wang A. Assessment of Residential History Generation Using a Public-Record Database. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12(9):11670-11682. doi:10.3390/ijerph120911670
eISSN:1617-9625