Jared A. Fisher

Fine Particulate Matter, Noise Pollution, and Greenspace and Prostate Cancer Risk in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Cohort

Abstract Background: Greenspace is hypothesized as being protective against cancer, whereas noise pollution and fine particulate matter (<2.5 μm in diameter, PM2.5) are both potential risk factors. Findings from recent studies of greenspace and PM2.5 with prostate cancer are not conclusive and the association between noise exposure and cancer has not been evaluated in a U.S. study. Methods: We assessed PM2.5, noise, and greenspace exposure using spatiotemporal models and satellite-based estimates at enrollment addresses for N = 43,184 male participants of the prospective Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) Screening Trial cohort (enrolled 1994–2001). We used Cox regression models adjusted for age, race and ethnicity, study center, family history of prostate cancer, and Area Deprivation Index to estimate associations between ambient PM2.5 (μg/m3), greenspace (index range from –1 to 1), and noise pollution (loudest 10% of total existing sound, decibels) and incident prostate cancer risk through December 2017. Results: A total of 6,327 cases of prostate cancer were diagnosed among male participants during follow-up. PM2.5 and noise exposures were moderately positively correlated (Spearman ρ = 0.46), and PM2.5 and greenspace were not correlated (ρ = 0.10); greenspace and noise were inversely correlated (ρ = −0.32). In single-pollutant and multipollutant models mutually adjusted for coexposures, we found no associations with prostate cancer risk. Conclusions: We did not find evidence that PM2.5, greenspace, and noise pollution were associated with prostate cancer risk in this large, geographically spread cohort. Impact: This study contributes to a small body of existing literature investigating these biologically plausible associations.

State-Specific Incidence of Endometrial Cancer in the United States by Histologic Subtype Corrected for Hysterectomy Prevalence from 2010 to 2019

Abstract Background: Accurate reporting of state-specific endometrial cancer incidence is important for informing cancer control efforts and may lead to new hypotheses about environmental and/or geographic risk factors. Previous studies have demonstrated the importance of accounting for hysterectomy prevalence when estimating state-level endometrial cancer incidence rates as hysterectomy prevalence varies by geographic region. Methods: We used the Cancer in North America Public Use Dataset produced by the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries to identify incident endometrial cancer cases among women ≥20 years of age diagnosed from 2010 to 2019. We estimated state-specific hysterectomy-corrected, age-adjusted incidence rates overall and by histology. State-specific hysterectomy prevalence data were obtained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Results: Hysterectomy prevalence was highest in Southern and Midwestern states and lowest in the Northeast. Although uncorrected endometrial cancer incidence rates were highest in the Northeast, hysterectomy-corrected rates were highest in states within the Midwest and Appalachia. Geographic patterns of the hysterectomy-corrected incidence of endometrioid cancer resembled those of endometrial cancer overall. In contrast, corrected rates of non-endometrioid cancer were highest in the South and in certain states within the Northeast and Midwest. There was no overlap in the top 10 states with the highest rates of endometrioid and non-endometrioid cancers, respectively. Conclusions: State-specific, hysterectomy-corrected incidence rates of endometrial cancer vary by histology, suggesting potential differences in behavioral, sociodemographic, and/or environmental exposures at the state level. Impact: This study presents an accurate assessment of US endometrial cancer rates and emphasizes the importance of hysterectomy correction for geographic comparisons.