The Urban/Rural Dichotomy in the Distribution of Breast Cancer Across Pennsylvania.
Breast cancer rates clearly differ across the United States. This is due to a variety of factors, but at least one determinant is the population density. Breast cancer detection rates and treatment paradigms may differ in rural areas when compared with more urban ones. As the population becomes more mobile and diffuse, this may or may not be a worsening problem. The current analysis was undertaken to examine the breast cancer incidence and outcomes in a single state in an attempt to plan for resource allocation in the future. A retrospective analysis was performed using data available from the Pennsylvania Department of Health regarding breast cancer rates by county, the distribution of cases with regard to degree of rurality, death rates by county as a function of rurality, and the age distribution of all presenting cases. Data from 1999 were compared with those of 2009. The United States Census Bureau definition of rurality was used, which specifies that a county be classified as rural if the population density is less than 284 persons/square mile. Between 1999 and 2009, the population of Pennsylvania increased by approximately 3.4 per cent (421,325 people). The urban population increased by 3.9 per cent, whereas the rural population increased by only 2.2 per cent. During that same period, the number of cancer cases/100,000 population remained about the same: 391.41 in 1999; 390.7 in 2009. However, the distribution of cases shifted during that time toward more rural areas of the state: in 1999, there were 372.3 breast cancer cases/100,000 population compared with 2009 when the rate was 384.4/100,000 population. The number of cancer deaths/100,000 population actually dropped overall during the decade: 98.5 in 1999 versus 82.3 in 2009. Though this was true in both urban and rural counties, the decrease was much less pronounced in the rural areas. In urban counties, the death rate dropped from 100.5 to 81.5/100,000 population, whereas in rural counties, the drop was only from 93.3 to 84.3. The greater increase in cases diagnosed in rural areas of Pennsylvania is only partially explained by the relatively greater increase in rural population. There are undoubtedly other issues at work in rural areas: environmental factors, diffusion of resources, less access to surveillance programs. In addition, though the death rate has dropped in both rural and urban areas, this is much less pronounced in rural counties. Coupled with the increase in prevalence in those areas, this suggests that breast cancer care may be lagging in rural areas. There is a need to examine allocation of resources and surveillance programs.
Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Stefanos
S
Boukovalas
Jack
J
Sariego
D017677:Age Distribution; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000453:epidemiology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D010414:Pennsylvania / Q000453:epidemiology; D011159:Population Surveillance / Q000379:methods*; D015995:Prevalence; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012424:Rural Population; D015996:Survival Rate / Q000639:trends; D014505:Urban Population