ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths in the United States and compiles the most recent data on population‐based cancer occurrence and outcomes using incidence data collected by central cancer registries and mortality data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2023, 1,958,310 new cancer cases and 609,820 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Cancer incidence increased for prostate cancer by 3% annually from 2014 through 2019 after two decades of decline, translating to an additional 99,000 new cases; otherwise, however, incidence trends were more favorable in men compared to women. For example, lung cancer in women decreased at one half the pace of men (1.1% vs. 2.6% annually) from 2015 through 2019, and breast and uterine corpus cancers continued to increase, as did liver cancer and melanoma, both of which stabilized in men aged 50 years and older and declined in younger men. However, a 65% drop in cervical cancer incidence during 2012 through 2019 among women in their early 20s, the first cohort to receive the human papillomavirus vaccine, foreshadows steep reductions in the burden of human papillomavirus‐associated cancers, the majority of which occur in women. Despite the pandemic, and in contrast with other leading causes of death, the cancer death rate continued to decline from 2019 to 2020 (by 1.5%), contributing to a 33% overall reduction since 1991 and an estimated 3.8 million deaths averted. This progress increasingly reflects advances in treatment, which are particularly evident in the rapid declines in mortality (approximately 2% annually during 2016 through 2020) for leukemia, melanoma, and kidney cancer, despite stable/increasing incidence, and accelerated declines for lung cancer. In summary, although cancer mortality rates continue to decline, future progress may be attenuated by rising incidence for breast, prostate, and uterine corpus cancers, which also happen to have the largest racial disparities in mortality.
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Received: 14 October 2022
-
Accepted: 14 October 2022
DOI: 10.3322/caac.21763
ARTICLE
Cancer statistics, 2023
Rebecca L. Siegel MPH
|Kimberly D. Miller MPH |
Nikita Sandeep Wagle MBBS, MHA, PhD |Ahmedin Jemal DVM, PhD
Surveillance and Health Equity Science,
American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia,
USA
Correspondence
Rebecca L. Siegel, Surveillance Research,
American Cancer Society, 3380 Chastain
Meadows Parkway NW, Suite 200, Kennesaw,
GA 30144, USA.
Email: rebecca.siegel@cancer.org
Abstract
Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases
and deaths in the United States and compiles the most recent data on population
based cancer occurrence and outcomes using incidence data collected by central
cancer registries and mortality data collected by the National Center for Health
Statistics. In 2023, 1,958,310 new cancer cases and 609,820 cancer deaths are
projected to occur in the United States. Cancer incidence increased for prostate
cancer by 3% annually from 2014 through 2019 after two decades of decline,
translating to an additional 99,000 new cases; otherwise, however, incidence trends
were more favorable in men compared to women. For example, lung cancer in
women decreased at one half the pace of men (1.1% vs. 2.6% annually) from 2015
through 2019, and breast and uterine corpus cancers continued to increase, as did
liver cancer and melanoma, both of which stabilized in men aged 50 years and older
and declined in younger men. However, a 65% drop in cervical cancer incidence
during 2012 through 2019 among women in their early 20s, the first cohort to
receive the human papillomavirus vaccine, foreshadows steep reductions in the
burden of human papillomavirusassociated cancers, the majority of which occur in
women. Despite the pandemic, and in contrast with other leading causes of death,
the cancer death rate continued to decline from 2019 to 2020 (by 1.5%), contrib-
uting to a 33% overall reduction since 1991 and an estimated 3.8 million deaths
averted. This progress increasingly reflects advances in treatment, which are
particularly evident in the rapid declines in mortality (approximately 2% annually
during 2016 through 2020) for leukemia, melanoma, and kidney cancer, despite
stable/increasing incidence, and accelerated declines for lung cancer. In summary,
although cancer mortality rates continue to decline, future progress may be
attenuated by rising incidence for breast, prostate, and uterine corpus cancers,
which also happen to have the largest racial disparities in mortality.
KEYWORDS
cancer cases, cancer statistics, death rates, incidence, mortality
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercialNoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is noncommercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2023 The Authors. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.
CA Cancer J Clin. 2023;73:1748. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/caac
-
17
INTRODUCTION
Cancer is a major public health problem worldwide and is the
second leading cause of death in the United States. The corona-
virus disease 2019 (COVID19) pandemic caused delays in the
diagnosis and treatment of cancer because of health care setting
closures, disruptions in employment and health insurance, and fear
of COVID19 exposure. Although the impact was largest during
the COVID19 peak in mid2020, the provision of health care has
not fully rebounded. For example, surgical oncology procedures at
Massachusetts General Hospital were 72% of 2019 levels during
the last one half of 2020 and were only 84% in 2021, the lowest
recovery of any surgical specialty.
1
Delays in diagnosis and treat-
ment may lead to an uptick in advancedstage disease and mor-
tality.
2
These and other secondary consequences of the pandemic
will occur gradually over time and will require many years to
quantify at the population level because of the 2year to 3year
lag in populationbased cancer incidence and mortality data.
However, what is already well established is the disproportionate
direct and indirect impact of the pandemic on communities of
color.
3,4
In this article, we provide the estimated numbers of new cancer
cases and deaths in 2023 in the United States nationally and for each
state, as well as a comprehensive overview of cancer occurrence
based on uptodate populationbased data for cancer incidence and
mortality. We also estimate the total number of cancer deaths
averted through 2020 because of the continuous decline in cancer
death rates since the early 1990s.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data sources
Populationbased cancer incidence data in the United States have
been collected by the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Surveillance,
Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program since 1973 and by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Program
of Cancer Registries (NPCR) since 1995. The SEER program is the
only source for historic, populationbased cancer incidence
(1975–2019), which is currently based on data from the eight
oldest SEER areas (Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, Utah,
and the metropolitan areas of Atlanta, San Francisco–Oakland, and
Seattle–Puget Sound) and represent approximately 8% of the US
population.
5
Historic survival data (1975–1977 and 1995–1997) are
based on the SEER 8 areas plus the Detroit metropolitan area,
6
as
published previously. Contemporary survival statistics (2012–2018)
were based on data from the 17 SEER registries (SEER 8 plus the
Alaska Native Tumor Registry and the California, Georgia, Ken-
tucky, Louisiana, and New Jersey registries), representing 27% of
the US population.
7,8
All 22 SEER registries (SEER 17 plus Idaho,
Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and Texas), covering 48% of the
United States, were the source for the probability of developing
cancer, which was obtained using the NCI's DevCan software,
version 6.8.0.
9
The North American Association of Central Cancer Registries
(NAACCR) compiles and reports incidence data from 1995 forward
for registries that participate in the SEER program and/or the NPCR
and achieve highquality data standards. These data approach 100%
coverage of the US population for the most recent years and were
the source for the projected new cancer cases in 2023, contemporary
incidence trends (1998–2019) and crosssectional incidence rates
(2015–2019), and stage distribution (2015–2019).
10
The incidence
rates presented herein differ slightly from those published in Cancer
in North America: 20152019 because of the use of 19 versus 20 age
groups, respectively, for age adjustment.
11,12
Mortality data from 1930 to 2020 were provided by the National
Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).
13,14
Fortyseven states and the
District of Columbia met data quality requirements for reporting to
the national vital statistics system in 1930, and Texas, Alaska, and
Hawaii began reporting in 1933, 1959, and 1960, respectively. The
methods for abstraction and age adjustment of historic mortality
data are described elsewhere.
14,15
Contemporary 5year mortality
rates for Puerto Rico were obtained from the NCI and the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention joint website, State Cancer
Profiles (statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov).
All cancer cases were classified according to the International
Classification of Diseases for Oncology except childhood and adolescent
cancers, which were classified according to the International Classifi-
cation of Childhood Cancer.
16–18
Causes of death were classified ac-
cording to the International Classification of Diseases.
19
Statistical analysis
All incidence and death rates were age standardized to the 2000 US
standard population (19 age groups) and expressed per 100,000
persons (or per million for childhood cancer incidence), as calculated
using the NCI's SEER*Stat software, version 8.4.0.
20
The annual
percent change in rates was quantified using the NCI's Joinpoint
Regression software program (version 4.9.1.0).
21
Trends were
described as increasing or decreasing when the annual percent
change was statistically significant based on a 2sided pvalue <.05
and otherwise were described as stable. All statistics presented
herein by race, including those for Asian American/Pacific Islander
(AAPI) and American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) individuals, are
exclusive of Hispanic ethnicity for improved accuracy of classifica-
tion. Racial misclassification for AIAN individuals has been further
reduced by restricting incidence rates to Purchased/Referred Care
Delivery Area counties and adjusting mortality rates (for the entire
United States) using classification ratios previously published by the
NCHS.
22
Life tables by Hispanic ethnicity were published in 2018 and
were used for relative survival comparisons between White and
Black individuals.
23
Whenever possible, cancer incidence rates were adjusted for
delays in reporting, which occur because of lags in case capture and
18
-
CANCER STATISTICS, 2023
data corrections. Delay adjustment provides the most accurate
portrayal of contemporary cancer rates and thus is particularly
important in trend analysis.
24
It has the largest effect on the most
recent data years for cancers that are frequently diagnosed in
outpatient settings (e.g., melanoma, leukemia, and prostate cancer).
For example, the leukemia incidence rate for 2019 was 13% higher
after adjusting for reporting delays (14.9 vs. 13.2 per 100,000
persons).
25
Projected cancer cases and deaths in 2023
The most recent year for which incidence and mortality data are
available lags 2–4 years behind the current year because of the time
required for data collection, compilation, quality control, and
dissemination. Therefore, we project the numbers of new cancer
cases and deaths in the United States in 2023 to estimate the
contemporary cancer burden using twostep statistical modeling, as
described in detail elsewhere.
26,27
Briefly, complete cancer diagnoses
were estimated for every state from 2005 through 2019 based on
delayadjusted, highquality incidence data from 50 states and the
District of Columbia (99.7% population coverage; recent data were
unavailable for Nevada) and statelevel variations in sociodemo-
graphic and lifestyle factors, medical settings, and cancer screening
behaviors.
28
Modeled state and national counts were then projected
forward to 2023 using a novel, datadriven joinpoint algorithm.
27
Ductal carcinoma in situ of the female breast and in situ melanoma of
the skin were estimated by approximating annual case counts from
2010 through 2019 based on NAACCR agespecific incidence rates,
delay factors for invasive disease (delay factors are unavailable for in
situ cases),
29
and US population estimates obtained using SEER*Stat
software.
10,30
Counts were then projected four years ahead based on
the average annual percent change generated by the joinpoint
regression model.
The number of cancer deaths expected to occur in 2023 was
estimated by applying the previously described datadriven joinpoint
algorithm to reported cancer deaths from 2006 through 2020 at the
state and national levels as reported by the NCHS.
27
Please note that
the estimated cases for 2023 reported herein are based on currently
available incidence data through 2019 and do not account for the
impact of the COVID19 pandemic on cancer diagnoses, whereas the
projected cancer deaths in 2023 are based on data through 2020 and
only account for the first year. In addition, basal cell and squamous
cell skin cancers cannot be estimated because diagnoses are not
recorded by most cancer registries.
Other statistics
The number of cancer deaths averted in men and women because of
the reduction in cancer death rates since the early 1990s was esti-
mated by summing the annual difference between the number of
cancer deaths recorded and the number that would have been
expected if cancer death rates had remained at their peak. The ex-
pected number of deaths was estimated by applying the 5year age
specific and sexspecific cancer death rates in the peak year for age
standardized cancer death rates (1990 in men, 1991 in women) to
the corresponding agespecific and sexspecific populations in sub-
sequent years through 2020.
SELECTED FINDINGS
Expected number of new cancer cases
Table 1presents the estimated numbers of new invasive cancer cases
in the United States in 2023 by sex and cancer type. In total, there
will be approximately 1,958,310 new cancer cases, the equivalent of
about 5370 cases each day. In addition, there will be about 55,720
new cases of ductal carcinoma in situ in women and 89,070 new
cases of melanoma in situ of the skin. The estimated numbers of new
cases for selected cancers by state are shown in Table 2.
The lifetime probability of being diagnosed with invasive cancer
is slightly higher for men (40.9%) than for women (39.1%; Table 3).
Higher risk in men for most cancer types is thought to largely reflect
greater exposure to carcinogenic environmental and behavioral fac-
tors, such as smoking, although a recent study suggests that other
differences also play a large role.
31
These may include height,
32,33
endogenous hormone exposure, and immune function and
response.
34
Figure 1depicts the most common cancers diagnosed in men and
women in 2023. Prostate, lung and bronchus (hereinafter lung), and
colorectal cancers (CRCs) account for almost one half (48%) of all
incident cases in men, with prostate cancer alone accounting for 29%
of diagnoses. For women, breast cancer, lung cancer, and CRC ac-
count for 52% of all new diagnoses, with breast cancer alone ac-
counting for 31% of female cancers.
Expected number of cancer deaths
An estimated 609,820 people in the United States will die from
cancer in 2023, corresponding to 1670 deaths per day (Table 1). The
greatest number of deaths are from cancers of the lung, prostate, and
colorectum in men and cancers of the lung, breast, and colorectum in
women (Figure 1). Table 4provides the estimated number of deaths
for these and other common cancers by state.
Approximately 350 people die each day from lung cancer—nearly
2.5 times more than the number of people who die from CRC, which
is the second leading cause of cancer death overall. Approximately
103,000 of the 127,070 lung cancer deaths (81%) in 2023 will be
caused by cigarette smoking directly, with an additional 3560 caused
by secondhand smoke.
35
The remaining balance of approximately
20,500 nonsmokingrelated lung cancer deaths would rank as the
eighth leading cause of cancer death among the sexes combined if it
was classified separately.
SIEGEL ET AL.
-
19
TABLE 1Estimated new cancer cases and deaths by sex, United States, 2023
a
Estimated new cases Estimated deaths
Cancer site Both sexes Male Female Both sexes Male Female
All sites 1,958,310 1,010,310 948,000 609,820 322,080 287,740
Oral cavity & pharynx 54,540 39,290 15,250 11,580 8140 3440
Tongue 18,040 13,180 4860 2940 1950 990
Mouth 14,820 8680 6140 3090 1870 1220
Pharynx 20,070 16,340 3730 4140 3260 880
Other oral cavity 1610 1090 520 1410 1060 350
Digestive system 348,840 194,980 153,860 172,010 99,350 72,660
Esophagus 21,560 17,030 4530 16,120 12,920 3200
Stomach 26,500 15,930 10,570 11,130 6690 4440
Small intestine 12,070 6580 5490 2070 1170 900
Colon & rectum
b
153,020 81,860 71,160 52,550 28,470 24,080
Colon 106,970 54,420 52,550
Rectum 46,050 27,440 18,610
Anus, anal canal, & anorectum 9760 3180 6580 1870 860 1010
Liver & intrahepatic bile duct 41,210 27,980 13,230 29,380 19,000 10,380
Gallbladder & other biliary 12,220 5750 6470 4510 1900 2610
Pancreas 64,050 33,130 30,920 50,550 26,620 23,930
Other digestive organs 8450 3540 4910 3830 1720 2110
Respiratory system 256,290 131,150 125,140 132,330 71,170 61,160
Larynx 12,380 9900 2480 3820 3070 750
Lung & bronchus 238,340 117,550 120,790 127,070 67,160 59,910
Other respiratory organs 5570 3700 1870 1440 940 500
Bones & joints 3970 2160 1810 2140 1200 940
Soft tissue (including heart) 13,400 7400 6000 5140 2720 2420
Skin (excluding basal & squamous) 104,930 62,810 42,120 12,470 8480 3990
Melanoma of the skin 97,610 58,120 39,490 7990 5420 2570
Other nonepithelial skin 7320 4690 2630 4480 3060 1420
Breast 300,590 2800 297,790 43,700 530 43,170
Genital system 414,350 299,540 114,810 69,660 35,640 34,020
Uterine cervix 13,960 13,960 4310 4310
Uterine corpus 66,200 66,200 13,030 13,030
Ovary 19,710 19,710 13,270 13,270
Vulva 6470 6470 1670 1670
Vagina & other female genital 8470 8470 1740 1740
Prostate 288,300 288,300 34,700 34,700
Testis 9190 9190 470 470
Penis & other male genital 2050 2050 470 470
Urinary system 168,560 117,590 50,970 32,590 22,680 9910
Urinary bladder 82,290 62,420 19,870 16,710 12,160 4550
Kidney & renal pelvis 81,800 52,360 29,440 14,890 9920 4970
Ureter & other urinary organs 4470 2810 1660 990 600 390
Eye & orbit 3490 1900 1590 430 240 190
20
-
CANCER STATISTICS, 2023
TABLE 1(Continued)
Estimated new cases Estimated deaths
Cancer site Both sexes Male Female Both sexes Male Female
Brain & other nervous system 24,810 14,280 10,530 18,990 11,020 7970
Endocrine system 47,230 14,340 32,890 3240 1560 1680
Thyroid 43,720 12,540 31,180 2120 970 1150
Other endocrine 3510 1800 1710 1120 590 530
Lymphoma 89,380 49,730 39,650 21,080 12,320 8760
Hodgkin lymphoma 8830 4850 3980 900 540 360
NonHodgkin lymphoma 80,550 44,880 35,670 20,180 11,780 8400
Myeloma 35,730 19,860 15,870 12,590 7000 5590
Leukemia 59,610 35,670 23,940 23,710 13,900 9810
Acute lymphocytic leukemia 6540 3660 2880 1390 700 690
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia 18,740 12,130 6610 4490 2830 1660
Acute myeloid leukemia 20,380 11,410 8970 11,310 6440 4870
Chronic myeloid leukemia 8930 5190 3740 1310 780 530
Other leukemia
c
5020 3280 1740 5210 3150 2060
Other & unspecified primary sites
c
32,590 16,810 15,780 48,160 26,130 22,030
Note: These are modelbased estimates that should be interpreted with caution and not compared with those for previous years.
Source: Estimated new cases are based on 2005–2019 incidence data reported by the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries.
Estimated deaths are based on 2006–2020 US mortality data reported by the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
a
Rounded to the nearest 10; cases exclude basal cell and squamous cell skin cancer and in situ carcinoma except urinary bladder. Approximately 55,720
cases of female breast ductal carcinoma in situ and 89,070 cases of melanoma in situ will be diagnosed in 2023.
b
Includes appendiceal cancer; deaths for colon and rectal cancers are combined because a large number of deaths from rectal cancer are misclassified as
colon cancer.
c
More deaths than cases may reflect a lack of specificity in recording underlying cause of death on death certificates and/or an undercount in the case
estimate.
Trends in cancer incidence
Figure 2illustrates longterm trends in overall cancer incidence
rates, which reflect both patterns in behaviors associated with
cancer risk and changes in medical practice, such as the use of
cancer screening tests. For example, the spike in incidence for males
during the early 1990s reflects a surge in the detection of asymp-
tomatic prostate cancer as a result of widespread rapid uptake of
prostatespecific antigen (PSA) testing among previously unscreened
men.
36
Thereafter, cancer incidence in men generally decreased
until around 2013, then stabilized through 2019. In women, the rate
was fairly stable until the mid1980s but has since increased slowly
by <0.5% per year.
5,37
Consequently, the sex gap is slowly nar-
rowing, with the maletofemale incidence rate ratio declining from
1.59 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57–1.61) in 1992
6
to 1.14 (95%
CI, 1.14–1.15) in 2019.
25
However, differences in risk vary widely by
age. For example, rates among individuals aged 20–49 years are
about 80% higher in females than in males, whereas, among those
aged 75 years and older, they are nearly 50% higher in men.
The incidence rate for prostate cancer dropped by about 40%
from 2007 to 2014 (Figure 3) because of declines in the diagnosis
of localized tumors through PSA testing, the prevalence of which
decreased after the United States Preventive Services Task Force
(USPSTF) recommended against screening for men aged 75 years
and older in 2008 and for all men in 2012.
38,39
However, the
prostate cancer incidence rate has risen by 3% per year from 2014
through 2019, translating to 99,000 more cases than would have
occurred if rates had remained stable, approximately half of which
were advanced. This uptick is driven by increases of about 4.5%
annually for regionalstage and distantstage diagnoses that began
as early as 2011 and are being watched closely.
37
Localizedstage
disease has also begun to tick up, although the trend is not yet
statistically significant. These patterns are consistent with
continued reports of a shift toward higher grade and stage at
prostate cancer diagnosis since circa 2010.
40
Efforts to recoup the
benefit of early prostate cancer detection while mitigating over-
diagnosis and overtreatment include a USPSTF upgrade to
informed decision making in men aged 55–69 in 2018
41,42
and
more targeted screening for clinically significant tumors using
molecular markers and magnetic resonance imagingtargeted bi-
opsy.
43,44
Black men benefit more from screening in general
45,46
and from the integration of personalized biomarkers because they
are more likely to harbor genomically aggressive cancer, even with
clinically lowrisk disease.
47
Prostate cancer mortality rates in
SIEGEL ET AL.
-
21
TABLE 2Estimated new cases for selected cancers by state, 2023
a
State All sites
Female
breast
Colon &
rectum Leukemia
Lung &
bronchus
Melanoma
of the skin
NonHodgkin
lymphoma Prostate
Urinary
bladder
Uterine
cervix
Uterine
corpus
Alabama 30,730 4500 2570 780 4280 1510 1030 5320 1180 240 830
Alaska 3390 520 330 90 450 100 140 470 160
b
110
Arizona 41,120 6240 3220 1190 4450 2800 1710 5060 1960 280 1260
Arkansas 18,670 2510 1630 520 2950 1080 720 2500 750 160 520
California 192,770 32,020 16,420 5510 17,040 10,950 8280 26,970 7250 1610 7050
Colorado 28,920 4910 2120 870 2600 2000 1150 4220 1220 200 920
Connecticut 23,480 3620 1560 810 2750 830 1020 3990 1160 120 800
Delaware 7240 1050 500 200 920 350 310 1330 350 50 250
District of Columbia 3520 570 240 60 350 80 120 540 110
b
130
Florida 162,410 22,670 11,750 6080 19,340 9640 8200 24,000 7210 1200 5050
Georgia 61,170 9440 4880 1700 7610 3310 2090 9140 2160 470 1760
Hawaii 8460 1480 770 210 930 520 330 1190 300 50 340
Idaho 10,810 1560 810 380 1080 760 440 1700 540 70 350
Illinois 74,580 11,530 6200 2090 9670 3380 2990 10,580 3160 520 2770
Indiana 40,270 5810 3430 1230 6020 2180 1580 5580 1780 280 1340
Iowa 20,460 2810 1630 740 2680 1310 860 2970 940 120 690
Kansas 16,840 2470 1430 500 2240 640 680 2680 720 120 550
Kentucky 30,270 4030 2640 850 5170 1490 1120 3520 1240 230 830
Louisiana 28,580 4050 2560 820 3850 1260 1040 4970 1060 230 820
Maine 10,490 1450 690 340 1550 490 450 1210 580
b
390
Maryland 35,200 5760 2560 1050 4290 1840 1380 5980 1340 230 1320
Massachusetts 42,880 6770 2880 1280 5790 1540 1750 6430 1890 210 1470
Michigan 61,910 8980 4630 1820 8690 2680 2580 8360 2980 380 2420
Minnesota 34,380 5220 2430 1200 3970 1140 1510 4880 1530 150 1190
Mississippi 18,210 2610 1750 460 2830 720 600 2790 620 150 530
Missouri 37,910 5700 3030 1190 5760 1610 1500 5000 1570 280 1320
Montana 7100 1030 540 220 720 550 290 1370 350
b
220
Nebraska 11,530 1670 950 380 1340 640 470 2180 470 60 370
Nevada 17,370 2620 1490 540 2030 800 720 2180 820 150 550
New Hampshire 9580 1390 650 290 1280 560 410 1410 520
b
360
New Jersey 56,150 8580 4220 1790 5920 2250 2420 9460 2540 350 2120
New Mexico 11,280 1730 940 350 960 610 470 1680 410 100 360
New York 123,810 18,780 8970 3560 14,150 4000 5150 20,390 5440 850 4620
North Carolina 67,690 10,730 4,740 2100 8810 3950 2560 10,040 2760 420 2180
North Dakota 4370 610 370 160 530 290 170 740 200
b
120
Ohio 74,140 11,200 5910 1980 10,680 3880 2900 10,980 3400 510 2570
Oklahoma 23,420 3330 1950 710 3390 1220 890 3100 920 200 700
Oregon 26,030 4220 1840 680 3030 1540 1090 3400 1210 140 830
Pennsylvania 88,450 12,830 6610 2600 11,320 3630 3690 13,210 4270 510 3330
Rhode Island 7030 1050 470 220 940 290 310 1030 340
b
260
South Carolina 33,890 5430 2550 890 4650 1800 1230 5770 1390 240 1040
22
-
CANCER STATISTICS, 2023
TABLE 2(Continued)
State All sites
Female
breast
Colon &
rectum Leukemia
Lung &
bronchus
Melanoma
of the skin
NonHodgkin
lymphoma Prostate
Urinary
bladder
Uterine
cervix
Uterine
corpus
South Dakota 5340 760 440 190 690 310 220 1040 240
b
170
Tennessee 43,790 6210 3450 1200 6580 1990 1600 6280 1730 320 1320
Texas 139,100 22,280 12,220 4780 14,510 5530 5540 17,230 4490 1510 4460
Utah 13,840 2030 940 440 800 1550 510 2500 500 90 470
Vermont 4370 630 300 130 590 230 210 630 200
b
150
Virginia 47,100 7810 3630 1230 6010 2360 1910 7580 1830 310 1590
Washington 44,630 7050 3160 1360 5030 2680 1900 6450 1940 270 1430
West Virginia 12,840 1620 1120 390 2170 560 550 1780 620 90 450
Wisconsin 37,640 5460 2650 1320 4630 1970 1630 5800 1780 180 1390
Wyoming 3170 460 260 90 330 210 110 690 170
b
110
United States 1,958,310 297,790 153,020 59,610 238,340 97,610 80,550 288,300 82,290 13,960 66,200
Note: These are modelbased estimates that should be interpreted with caution. State estimates may not add to US totals because of rounding and the
exclusion of states with fewer than 50 cases.
a
Rounded to the nearest 10; excludes basal cell and squamous cell skin cancers and in situ carcinomas except urinary bladder. Estimates for Puerto Rico
are unavailable.
b
The estimate is fewer than 50 cases.
TABLE 3Probability (%) of developing invasive cancer within selected age intervals by sex, United States, 2017–2019
a
Probability, %
Cancer site Sex Birth to 49 years 50–59 years 60–69 years 70 years and older Birth to death
All sites
b
Male 3.5 (1 in 29) 6.2 (1 in 16) 13.8 (1 in 7) 34.0 (1 in 3) 40.9 (1 in 2)
Female 5.8 (1 in 17) 6.4 (1 in 16) 10.4 (1 in 10) 27.2 (1 in 4) 39.1 (1 in 3)
Breast Female 2.1 (1 in 48) 2.4 (1 in 41) 3.5 (1 in 28) 7.0 (1 in 14) 12.9 (1 in 8)
Colon & rectum Male 0.4 (1 in 241) 0.7 (1 in 138) 1.1 (1 in 90) 3.1 (1 in 33) 4.3 (1 in 23)
Female 0.4 (1 in 267) 0.5 (1 in 191) 0.8 (1 in 130) 2.8 (1 in 36) 3.9 (1 in 26)
Kidney & renal pelvis Male 0.3 (1 in 389) 0.4 (1 in 250) 0.7 (1 in 144) 1.4 (1 in 69) 2.3 (1 in 44)
Female 0.2 (1 in 609) 0.2 (1 in 504) 0.3 (1 in 292) 0.8 (1 in 124) 1.3 (1 in 75)
Leukemia Male 0.3 (1 in 380) 0.2 (1 in 538) 0.4 (1 in 263) 1.4 (1 in 69) 1.8 (1 in 55)
Female 0.2 (1 in 495) 0.1 (1 in 820) 0.2 (1 in 425) 0.9 (1 in 111) 1.3 (1 in 78)
Lung & bronchus Male 0.1 (1 in 848) 0.6 (1 in 178) 1.7 (1 in 59) 5.6 (1 in 18) 6.2 (1 in 16)
Female 0.1 (1 in 746) 0.5 (1 in 183) 1.4 (1 in 72) 4.7 (1 in 21) 5.8 (1 in 17)
Melanoma of the skin
c
Male 0.4 (1 in 246) 0.5 (1 in 205) 0.9 (1 in 114) 2.6 (1 in 38) 3.5 (1 in 28)
Female 0.6 (1 in 162) 0.4 (1 in 247) 0.5 (1 in 191) 1.1 (1 in 88) 2.4 (1 in 41)
NonHodgkin lymphoma Male 0.3 (1 in 400) 0.3 (1 in 354) 0.6 (1 in 181) 1.8 (1 in 55) 2.3 (1 in 43)
Female 0.2 (1 in 535) 0.2 (1 in 473) 0.4 (1 in 250) 1.3 (1 in 74) 1.9 (1 in 53)
Prostate Male 0.2 (1 in 457) 1.8 (1 in 55) 5.2 (1 in 19) 9.2 (1 in 11) 12.6 (1 in 8)
Thyroid Male 0.2 (1 in 487) 0.1 (1 in 767) 0.2 (1 in 599) 0.2 (1 in 416) 0.6 (1 in 155)
Female 0.8 (1 in 125) 0.3 (1 in 290) 0.3 (1 in 318) 0.4 (1 in 276) 1.7 (1 in 59)
Uterine cervix Female 0.3 (1 in 340) 0.1 (1 in 803) 0.1 (1 in 934) 0.2 (1 in 593) 0.7 (1 in 153)
Uterine corpus Female 0.3 (1 in 305) 0.6 (1 in 161) 1.0 (1 in 97) 1.5 (1 in 68) 3.1 (1 in 33)
a
For people free of cancer at beginning of age interval.
b
All sites exclude basal cell and squamous cell skin cancers and in situ cancers except urinary bladder.
c
Probability for nonHispanic White individuals.
SIEGEL ET AL.
-
23
Black men are approximately two to four times higher than those
in every other racial and ethnic group (Table 5).
Female breast cancer incidence rates have been slowly
increasing by about 0.5% per year since the mid2000s, largely driven
by diagnoses of localizedstage and hormone receptorpositive dis-
ease.
48
This trend has been attributed at least in part to continued
declines in the fertility rate and increases in excess body weight,
49
which may also contribute to increased uterine corpus cancer inci-
dence of about 1% per year since the mid2000s among women aged
50 years and older and nearly 2% per year since at least the mid
1990s in younger women.
37,50
After decades of increase, thyroid
cancer incidence rates have declined since 2014 by about 2% per
year because of changes in clinical practice designed to mitigate over
detection, including recommendations against thyroid cancer
screening by the USPSTF, and for more restrictive criteria for per-
forming and interpreting biopsies by professional societies.
51,52
Data
from autopsy studies indicate that the occurrence of clinically rele-
vant thyroid tumors has remained stable since 1970 and is generally
similar in men and women, despite threefold higher overall incidence
rates in women.
53,54
Lung cancer incidence has declined at a steady pace since 2006–
2007 by 2.6% annually in men and by 1.1% annually in women.
37
Declines in lung cancer incidence began later and have been slower
in women than in men because women took up cigarette smoking in
large numbers later and were also slower to quit, including upturns in
smoking prevalence in some birth cohorts.
55,56
In contrast, CRC
incidence patterns have been similar by sex since at least the mid
1970s, with rates declining by 1.4%–1.5% per year since 2012 in
both men and women.
37
However, these rates are driven by cancer
occurrence in older age groups, for whom screening has been rec-
ommended, and mask increasing trends in young adults. Compared
with declines of 2% per year in people aged 50 years and older during
that time period, rates increased by almost 2% per year in adults
younger than 50 years. Rising incidence in the United States and
several other highincome countries since the mid1990s
57
remains
unexplained but likely reflects changes in lifestyle exposures that
began with generations born circa 1950.
58
After a long history of increase, incidence of nonHodgkin lym-
phoma decreased by about 1% per year during 2015 through 2019,
and melanoma and liver cancer have stabilized. However, progress
FIGURE 1 Ten leading cancer types for the estimated new cancer cases and deaths by sex, United States, 2023. Estimates are
rounded to the nearest 10, and cases exclude basal cell and squamous cell skin cancers and in situ carcinoma except urinary bladder. Ranking
is based on modeled projections and may differ from the most recent observed data.
24
-
CANCER STATISTICS, 2023
TABLE 4Estimated deaths for selected cancers by state, 2023
a
State All sites
Brain &
other
nervous
system
Female
breast
Colon &
rectum Leukemia
Liver &
intrahepatic
bile duct
Lung &
bronchus
Non
Hodgkin
lymphoma Ovary Pancreas Prostate
Alabama 10,640 330 720 900 370 520 2610 290 200 840 540
Alaska 1,150
b
60 110
b
70 220
b
b
90 60
Arizona 13,460 420 920 1300 530 690 2290 430 320 1140 850
Arkansas 6340 190 390 550 200 310 1680 190 120 460 340
California 59,830 2180 4680 5530 2290 3450 9380 2180 1450 4970 4090
Colorado 8650 310 690 740 340 430 1450 280 210 790 740
Connecticut 6440 230 480 550 290 320 1320 230 160 540 400
Delaware 2230 60 160 170 90 90 500 80 50 210 100
District of Columbia 990
b
60 90
b
80 160
b
b
100 70
Florida 47,410 1450 3170 3810 1970 2230 10,230 1580 1060 3910 2650
Georgia 18,510 590 1400 1640 660 820 4060 500 430 1520 1020
Hawaii 2620 60 180 240 90 170 480 90 50 240 150
Idaho 3120 100 160 270 140 170 580 120 80 280 200
Illinois 23,380 680 1720 2110 910 1080 5000 780 550 2080 1270
Indiana 13,660 330 930 1170 510 650 3250 460 260 1170 760
Iowa 6310 190 380 540 260 230 1410 200 140 460 370
Kansas 5690 190 370 500 240 250 1330 190 120 410 280
Kentucky 10,090 280 790 890 400 380 2710 320 160 740 410
Louisiana 9420 250 690 870 390 530 2240 290 170 730 470
Maine 3500 110 190 270 120 120 870 120 70 270 170
Maryland 11,090 320 850 980 420 510 1950 350 260 910 680
Massachusetts 12,420 450 760 880 490 530 2570 350 300 1120 680
Michigan 21,380 620 1370 1740 800 920 4930 760 460 1810 1210
Minnesota 10,280 320 640 830 450 380 2090 400 210 870 630
Mississippi 6690 190 470 640 230 300 1740 170 110 440 370
Missouri 13,090 370 810 940 470 590 3210 420 250 1010 650
Montana 2200 80 150 170 80 160 380 70
b
170 140
Nebraska 3540 130 270 320 160 100 630 110 70 300 170
Nevada 5850 190 440 470 200 300 1260 220 120 450 440
New Hampshire 2910 100 180 190 100 140 560 100
b
320 170
New Jersey 15,230 520 1200 1360 640 600 2800 530 350 1410 730
New Mexico 3840 120 300 290 130 300 560 130 70 310 280
New York 31,320 950 2440 2770 1200 1210 6330 1000 850 2940 1650
North Carolina 20,400 560 1450 1640 760 1010 4660 640 370 1630 1150
North Dakota 1320
b
70 110 70 50 290 50
b
110 70
Ohio 24,770 720 1670 2120 1060 1010 5730 830 470 2080 1310
Oklahoma 8660 250 580 800 340 460 2090 290 190 590 400
Oregon 8430 270 570 640 330 470 1650 310 150 710 500
Pennsylvania 27,460 740 1870 2280 1140 1260 5720 950 610 2340 1440
(Continues)
SIEGEL ET AL.
-
25
for the latter two cancers is mostly confined to men, among whom
rates declined by about 1% per year for melanoma and by 2.6% per
year for liver cancer in those younger than 50 years and were stable
in older men. In women, melanoma was stable in those younger than
50 years but continued to increase by about 1% per year in older
women, whereas liver cancer increased by 1.6%–1.7% per year in
both age groups.
37
The decline in urinary bladder cancer since the
mid2000s accelerated from 0.6% per year to 1.8% per year during
2015 through 2019 overall; however, trends vary widely by race and
ethnicity, and incidence continues to increase by 1.3% per year in
AIAN individuals. Incidence also continued to increase by about 1%
annually in both men and women for cancers of the kidney and
pancreas and by 2.8% and 1.3% per year, respectively, for human
papillomavirus (HPV)associated oral cavity cancers.
Cervical cancer incidence has decreased by more than one half
since the mid1970s because of the widespread uptake of screening.
Although rates were stable during 2015 through 2019 overall, trends
vary by age, race, and ethnicity. For example, rates continued to
decline by about 2% annually in Black, Hispanic, and Asian American/
Pacific Islander (AAPI) women 50 years and older and by 1% annually
in younger Black and AAPI women; however, rates among younger
Hispanic women increased by 2% per year from 2012 through 2019.
This may at least in part reflect a change in the composition of the
young Hispanic population in the United States through immigration
and/or migration. For example, cervical cancer incidence rates among
women in Puerto Rico are 30% higher than those among mainland
Hispanic women
59
and were recently reported to be increasing in
women younger than 65 years, perhaps due to increased HPV
prevalence and suboptimal screening.
60
The first vaccine against the two strains of HPV that cause 70%
of cervical cancers (HPV16 and HPV18) was approved in 2006 by
TABLE 4(Continued)
State All sites
Brain &
other
nervous
system
Female
breast
Colon &
rectum Leukemia
Liver &
intrahepatic
bile duct
Lung &
bronchus
Non
Hodgkin
lymphoma Ovary Pancreas Prostate
Rhode Island 2150 80 130 160 80 130 470 70
b
190 110
South Carolina 11,250 360 800 910 410 500 2630 310 190 900 640
South Dakota 1760 60 110 170 130 90 380 60
b
150 80
Tennessee 14,590 420 1030 1240 520 620 3700 460 330 1090 740
Texas 44,140 1330 3340 4350 1590 2750 8330 1440 950 3510 2290
Utah 3710 200 320 310 160 180 460 140 110 310 340
Vermont 1460 60 80 120 50 80 280 50
b
110 90
Virginia 15,800 500 1150 1410 590 680 3320 510 350 1320 960
Washington 13,350 490 960 1050 510 680 2630 480 320 1100 840
West Virginia 4610 120 230 440 180 220 1290 150 90 330 190
Wisconsin 11,670 380 720 880 480 510 2460 410 220 1020 730
Wyoming 1020 50 70 110
b
60 200
b
b
90 80
United States 609,820 18,990 43,170 52,550 23,710 29,380 127,070 20,180 13,270 50,550 34,700
Note: These are modelbased estimates that should be interpreted with caution. State estimates may not add to US totals because of rounding and the
exclusion of states with fewer than 50 deaths.
a
Rounded to the nearest 10; estimates for Puerto Rico are not available.
b
The estimate is <50 deaths.
FIGURE 2 Trends in cancer incidence (1975–2019) and
mortality (1975–2020) rates by sex, United States. Rates are age
adjusted to the 2000 US standard population. Incidence rates are
also adjusted for delays in reporting.
26
-
CANCER STATISTICS, 2023
the US Food and Drug Administration for use in females aged 9–
26 years.
61,62
Thus, the first cohort of vaccinated adolescents is now
in their 20s. Among women aged 20–24 years, invasive cervical
cancer incidence rates declined by 3% annually from 1998 (2.1 per
100,000 persons) through 2012 (1.3 per 100,000 persons), then by
11.4% annually from 2012 through 2019 (0.5 per 100,000 persons;
Figure 4). The overall reduction during 2012 through 2019 was 65%,
compared with 33% during the previous 7year period (2005–2012).
Although a new joinpoint is not yet evident among women of color
because of sparse data, the decrease in rates during 2012 through
2019 was similar across race and ethnicity (White, 64%; Black, 69%;
Hispanic, 70%). Data for AAPI and AIAN women were too sparse to
analyze.
These findings are consistent with those of Mix et al., who re-
ported declines in cervical squamous cell carcinoma of 22.5% per year
from 2010 through 2017 among women aged 15–20 years.
63
Sur-
prisingly large herd immunity has also been shown in the United States
based on data from the National Health Examination Survey during
2003 through 2018, with reductions in HPV16 and HPV18 infection
among sexually active females aged 14–24 years of 90% among those
who were vaccinated and 74% among those who were unvaccinated.
64
Sweden was first to report a populationlevel reduction in invasive
cervical cancer incidence of 78% among women who were vaccinated
before age 17 years in 2020.
65
Shortly thereafter, an 87% reduction in
cervical cancer and a 97% reduction in grade 3 cervical intraepithelial
neoplasia was demonstrated among women aged 20–29 years who
were vaccinated at ages 12 to 13 years in England.
66
Although upto
date (threedose) HPV vaccination coverage in the United States has
lagged behind other countries, accumulating evidence suggests that a
single dose offers substantial protection
67,68
and may even be pref-
erable in lowincome, highburden populations.
69
In April, 2022, the
World Health Organization's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on
Immunization endorsed singledose vaccination among girls aged 9–
14 years to address the global shortfall and optimize cancer preven-
tion.
70
In 2021, 79% of adolescent girls in the United States had
received at least one dose, and 64% were up to date.
71
Cancer survival
The 5year relative survival rate for all cancers combined has
increased from 49% for diagnoses during the mid1970s to 68% for
diagnoses during 2012 through 2018 (Table 6).
6,7
Current survival is
highest for cancers of the thyroid (98%), prostate (97%), testis (95%)
and for melanoma (94%), and lowest for cancers of the pancreas
(12%), liver and esophagus (21%). Screening influences the inter-
pretation of survival improvements for breast and prostate cancers
because of leadtime bias and the detection of indolent cancers,
72
which is likely also a factor for thyroid and other cancers that can be
detected incidentally through imaging.
73
Gains in survival have been especially rapid for hematopoietic
and lymphoid malignancies because of improvements in treatment
protocols, including the development of targeted therapies. For
example, the 5year relative survival rate for chronic myeloid leu-
kemia has increased from 22% in the mid1970s to 70% for those
diagnosed during 2012 through 2018, and most patients who were
treated with tyrosinekinase inhibitors are experiencing near normal
life expectancy.
74
More recently, a cascade of new therapies has
FIGURE 3 Trends in incidence rates for selected cancers by sex, United States, 1975–2019. Rates are age adjusted to the 2000 US
standard population and adjusted for delays in reporting.
a
Liver includes intrahepatic bile duct.
SIEGEL ET AL.
-
27
TABLE 5Incidence and mortality rates for selected cancers by race and ethnicity, United States, 2015–2020
All races and
ethnicities White Black
American Indian/
Alaska Native
b
Asian American/
Pacific Islander Hispanic/Latino
Incidence, 2015–2019
All sites 449.4 466.6 453.7 456.8 295.5 352.2
Male 488.2 502.1 527.5 481.2 294.9 372.1
Female 423.3 442.8 404.2 443.6 300.1 344.8
Breast (female) 128.1 133.7 127.8 111.3 101.3 99.2
Colon & rectum
a
35.9 35.7 41.7 48.6 28.6 32.5
Male 41.5 41.0 49.6 56.2 33.9 38.8
Female 31.2 30.9 35.9 42.5 24.3 27.4
Kidney & renal pelvis 17.3 17.5 19.1 31.0 8.1 17.5
Male 23.5 23.8 26.2 41.2 11.4 22.8
Female 12.0 11.9 13.6 22.5 5.5 13.1
Liver & intrahepatic bile duct 8.6 7.3 10.7 18.4 12.2 13.8
Male 13.1 11.0 17.4 26.8 18.9 20.3
Female 4.8 4.0 5.5 11.5 6.8 8.2
Lung & bronchus 56.3 60.6 58.2 61.6 34.2 29.1
Male 64.1 67.3 74.8 66.9 42.1 35.6
Female 50.3 55.5 46.9 57.9 28.3 24.4
Prostate 109.9 103.5 176.2 82.6 57.2 87.2
Stomach 6.4 5.2 9.7 9.6 9.4 9.4
Male 8.5 7.2 13.0 12.5 12.2 11.6
Female 4.6 3.4 7.4 7.5 7.2 7.8
Uterine cervix 7.7 7.2 8.8 10.9 6.1 9.7
Uterine corpus 27.7 27.9 28.4 29.4 21.2 25.5
Mortality, 2016–2020
All sites 149.4 154.4 174.7 179.3 94.5 108.2
Male 177.5 182.5 216.0 216.5 110.4 129.6
Female 128.7 133.0 149.2 153.7 82.9 93.2
Breast (female) 19.6 19.7 27.6 20.5 11.7 13.7
Colon & rectum 13.1 13.1 17.6 18.6 9.1 10.7
Male 15.7 15.5 22.3 22.6 10.9 13.5
Female 11.0 11.1 14.3 15.6 7.7 8.5
Kidney & renal pelvis 3.5 3.6 3.4 6.5 1.6 3.3
Male 5.1 5.3 5.2 9.7 2.4 4.8
Female 2.2 2.3 2.1 4.1 1.0 2.1
Liver & intrahepatic bile duct 6.6 5.9 8.3 13.3 8.4 9.2
Male 9.6 8.4 12.9 19.5 12.5 13.1
Female 4.1 3.6 4.8 8.5 5.1 6.0
Lung & bronchus 35.0 38.0 37.2 42.3 19.8 15.4
Male 42.2 44.7 51.0 51.1 25.6 20.9
Female 29.3 32.8 27.8 36.0 15.4 11.4
28
-
CANCER STATISTICS, 2023
been gamechanging in the treatment of metastatic melanoma,
including firstgeneration and secondgeneration immunotherapies
(antiCTLA4 and antiPD1 checkpoint inhibition) and BRAF and
MEK inhibitors.
75,76
As a result, 3year relative survival for distant
stage melanoma has doubled over the past decade, from 20.6% for
patients diagnosed during 2004 through 2006 to 39.3% during 2016
TABLE 5(Continued)
All races and
ethnicities White Black
American Indian/
Alaska Native
b
Asian American/
Pacific Islander Hispanic/Latino
Prostate 18.8 17.8 37.5 21.9 8.6 15.3
Stomach 2.8 2.1 5.0 5.5 4.6 4.8
Male 3.8 2.9 7.2 7.5 5.9 5.9
Female 2.1 1.5 3.5 4.0 3.7 3.9
Uterine cervix 2.2 2.0 3.3 3.2 1.6 2.5
Uterine corpus 5.1 4.6 9.1 4.9 3.5 4.3
Note: Rates are per 100,000 population and age adjusted to the 2000 US standard population. All race groups are exclusive of Hispanic origin.
a
Colorectal cancer incidence rates exclude appendix.
b
To reduce racial misclassification, incidence rates are limited to Purchased/Referred Care Delivery Area counties and mortality rates (for the entire
United States) are adjusted using factors published by the National Center for Health Statistics.
22
FIGURE 4 Trends in cervical cancer incidence rates among women aged 20–24 years by race and ethnicity, United States, 1998–2019.
Rates are age adjusted to the 2000 US standard population and adjusted for reporting delays. White and Black race are exclusive of Hispanic
ethnicity.
a
The APC is statistically significant (p<.05). APC indicates annual percent change.
SIEGEL ET AL.
-
29
through 2018.
7
Investigators at the NCI recently reported that the
number of individuals living with metastatic melanoma increased by
258% from 1990 to 2018, by far the largest increase among the six
common cancers studied.
77
Immunotherapy has also shown promise in the neoadjuvant
setting for resectable stage II–IV cutaneous squamous cell carci-
noma
78
and nonsmall cell lung cancer. A phase 3 trial among patients
with stage I–III nonsmall cell lung cancer reported a median
progressionfree survival of 20.8 months with standard chemo-
therapy versus 31.6 months with the addition of nivolumab, including
a pathologic complete response in one of four patients.
79
At the
population level, 3year relative survival for all stages of lung cancer
combined increased from 22% for diagnoses during 2004 through
2006 to 33% for diagnoses during 2016 through 2018, with progress
against nonsmall cell lung cancer (from 25% to 38%) far exceeding
that for small cell lung cancer (from 9% to 12%). Gains not only
reflect improved therapies
80,81
but also earlier lung cancer detec-
tion
82,83
and advances in staging
84
and surgical procedures.
85
Checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies are also showing
promise in difficulttotreat advanced renal cell carcinoma.
86
TABLE 6Trends in 5year relative survival rates (%) by race, United States, 1975–2019
a
Cancer site
All races & ethnicities White Black
1975–1977 1995–1997 2012–2018 1975–1977 1995–1997 2012–2018 1975–1977 1995–1997 2012–2018
All sites 49 63 68 50 64 69 39 54 64
Brain & other nervous
system
23 32 33 22 31 29 25 39 40
Breast (female) 75 87 91 76 89 92 62 75 83
Colon & rectum 50 61 65 50 62 65 45 54 60
Colon 51 61 63 51 62 64 45 54 58
Rectum 48 62 68 48 62 67 44 55 65
Esophagus 5 13 21 6 14 22 4 9 15
Hodgkin lymphoma 72 84 89 72 85 90 70 82 87
Kidney & renal pelvis 50 62 77 50 62 76 49 62 77
Larynx 66 66 61 67 68 62 58 52 53
Leukemia 34 48 66 35 50 67 33 42 62
Liver & intrahepatic bile
duct
3 7 21 3 7 20 2 4 19
Lung & bronchus 12 15 23 12 15 23 11 13 21
Melanoma of the skin 82 91 94 82 91 94 57
b
76
b
70
Myeloma 25 32 58 24 32 57 29 32 60
NonHodgkin lymphoma 47 56 74 47 57 75 49 49 70
Oral cavity & pharynx 53 58 68 54 60 70 36 38 52
Ovary 36 43 50 35 43 49 42 36 41
Pancreas 3 4 12 3 4 11 2 4 11
Prostate 68 97 97 69 97 97 61 94 97
Stomach 15 22 33 14 20 33 16 22 34
Testis 83 96 95 83 96 96 73
b,c
86
b
92
Thyroid 92 95 98 92 96 99 90 95 97
Urinary bladder 72 80 77 73 81 78 50 63 65
Uterine cervix 69 73 67 70 74 67 65 66 56
Uterine corpus 87 84 81 88 86 84 60 62 64
a
Rates are age adjusted for normal life expectancy and are based on cases diagnosed in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 9 areas
for 1975–1977 and 1995–1997 and in the SEER 17 areas for 2012–2018; all cases were followed through 2019. Rates for White and Black patients
diagnosed during 2012 through 2018 are exclusive of Hispanic ethnicity.
b
The standard error is between 5 and 10 percentage points.
c
The survival rate is for cases diagnosed from 1978 to 1980.
30
-
CANCER STATISTICS, 2023
Unlike most common cancers, survival has not improved over the
past 4 decades for women with uterine malignancies (Table 6), largely
reflecting a lack of major treatment advances.
87,88
Uterine corpus
cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in women, yet
there is a dearth of research activity
89
and it ranked 24th in NCI
research funding in 2018.
90
The lack of progress has disproportion-
ately affected Black women, who are substantially less likely to be
diagnosed with localizedstage disease (57% versus 72% of White
women; Figure 5) and have lower survival for every stage (Figure 6).
Black women have the highest mortality rate of all racial and ethnic
FIGURE 5 Stage distribution for selected cancers by race, United States, 2015 to 2019. White and Black race categories are exclusive of
Hispanic ethnicity.
a
Colorectum excludes appendiceal cancer.
b
The proportion of melanoma patients with unknown stage increased after 2015
when collaborative staging rules were no longer in effect.
SIEGEL ET AL.
-
31
groups for every histologic subtype of uterine corpus cancer.
91
The
recent identification of distinct molecular subtypes offers opportu-
nities for the development of targeted therapies, which could have a
large impact because almost one half of early stage, recurrent endo-
metrial cancers have targetable molecular alterations.
92,93
However,
equitable dissemination of future advances will be critical to avoid
exacerbating the current disparity, which is already one of the largest
of all cancers. Stagnant survival trends for cervical cancer likely reflect
in part an increased proportion of adenocarcinoma, which has poorer
survival than squamous cell carcinoma,
94
because of the dispropor-
tionate detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and early inva-
sive squamous cell carcinoma during cytology screening.
95
Survival rates are lower for Black individuals than for White in-
dividuals for every cancer type shown in Figure 6except pancreas and
kidney cancers, for which they are similar. However, kidney cancer
survival is lower in Black patients for every histologic subtype of the
FIGURE 6 Fiveyear relative survival for selected cancers by race and stage at diagnosis, United States, 2012 to 2018. White and Black
race categories are exclusive of Hispanic ethnicity.
a
Colorectum excludes appendiceal cancer.
b
The standard error of the survival rate is
between 5 and 10 percentage points.
c
The survival rate for carcinoma in situ of the urinary bladder is 96% in all races, 96% in White patients,
and 94% in Black patients.
32
-
CANCER STATISTICS, 2023
disease and is only similar overall because of a higher proportion than
Whites of papillary and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC),
which have a better prognosis than other types of RCC.
96
The largest
Black–White survival differences in absolute terms are for melanoma
(24%) and cancers of the uterine corpus (20%), the oral cavity and
pharynx (18%), and the urinary bladder (13%). Although these dis-
parities partly reflect a later stage at diagnosis (Figure 5), Black in-
dividuals have lower stagespecific survival for most cancer types
(Figure 6). After adjusting for stage, sex, and age, the risk of cancer
death is 33% higher in Black people and 51% higher in AIAN people
compared with White people.
97
Trends in cancer mortality
Mortality rates are a better indicator of progress against cancer than
incidence or survival rates because they are less affected by biases
that result from changes in detection practice.
98
The cancer death
rate rose during most of the 20th century (Figure 7), largely because
of a rapid increase in lung cancer deaths among men as a conse-
quence of the tobacco epidemic. However, reductions in smoking as
well as improvements in early detection and treatment for some
cancers have resulted in a continuous decline in the cancer death rate
since its peak in 1991 at 215.1 per 100,000 persons. The overall drop
FIGURE 7 Trends in cancer mortality rates by sex overall and for selected cancers, United States, 1930–2020. Rates are age
adjusted to the 2000 US standard population. Because of improvements in International Classification of Diseases coding over time,
numerator data for cancers of the lung and bronchus, colon and rectum, liver, and uterus differ from the contemporary time period. For
example, rates for lung and bronchus include pleura, trachea, mediastinum, and other respiratory organs.
SIEGEL ET AL.
-
33
of 33% through 2020 (143.8 per 100,000 persons) translates to an
estimated 3,820,800 fewer cancer deaths (2,582,800 in men and
1,238,000 in women) than if mortality had remained at its peak
(Figure 8). The number of averted deaths is twice as large for men
than for women because the death rate in men peaked higher and
declined faster (Figure 7).
The pace of decline in cancer mortality has slowly accelerated
from about 1% per year during the 1990s, to 1.5% per year during
the 2000s, and to 2% per year from 2015 through 2020 (Table 7).
Overall mortality trends are largely driven by lung cancer, for which
declines steepened similarly in men and women in recent years
because of treatment advances that have extended survival, as
mentioned earlier, as well as earlier detection.
83
For example, the
annual decrease in lung cancer mortality accelerated from 3.1%
during 2005 through 2014 to 5.3% during 2014 through 2020 in men
and from 1.8% to 4.3% in women (Table 7). Overall, the lung cancer
death rate dropped by 58% from 1990 to 2020 in men and by 36%
from 2002 to 2020 in women.
Longterm reductions in mortality for CRC—the secondmost
common cause of cancer death in men and women combined—also
contribute to overall progress, with rates dropping by 55% among
males since 1980 and by 61% among females since 1969. (CRC death
rates were declining in women before 1969, but earlier data years
are not exclusive of deaths from small intestine cancer.) The CRC
mortality rate decreased during the most recent decade (2011–
2020) by about 2% per year. However, similar to incidence, this trend
masks increasing mortality among young adults; the CRC death rate
continued to rise by 1.2% per year in individuals younger than
50 years and by 0.6% per year in those aged 50–54 years from 2005
through 2020.
Female breast cancer mortality peaked in 1989 and has since
decreased by 43% because of earlier diagnosis through mammog-
raphy screening and increased awareness, coupled with improve-
ments in treatment. Declines in breast cancer mortality have slowed
in recent years, from 2% to 3% annually during the 1990s and 2000s
to 1% annually from 2011 to 2020, perhaps reflecting the slight but
steady increase in incidence and stagnant mammography uptake in
recent years. Similarly, the slowing decline in prostate cancer mor-
tality, from 3% to 4% annually during 1994 through 2013 to 0.6%
during 2013 through 2020, likely reflects the uptick in advanced
stage diagnoses associated with reductions in PSA testing since
2008.
99,100
Prostate cancer mortality has declined by 53% since the
peak in 1993 because of earlier detection through widespread
screening with the PSA test and advances in treatment.
101,102
The third leading cause of cancer death in men and women
combined is pancreatic cancer, for which mortality has increased
slowly in men, from 12.1 (per 100,000 men) in 2000 to 12.7 per
100,000 men in 2020, but remained relatively stable in women at
9.3–9.6 per 100,000 women. Liver cancer had the fastest increasing
mortality for decades, but rates have stabilized in women and began
a downturn in men (1.3% decline from 2017 to 2020; Table 7), mir-
roring patterns in incidence. Mortality declines of about 2% per year
FIGURE 8 Total number of cancer deaths averted from 1991 through 2020 in men and from 1992 to 2020 in women, United States.
The blue line represents the actual number of cancer deaths recorded in each year; the red line represents the number of cancer
deaths that would have been expected if cancer death rates had remained at their peak.
34
-
CANCER STATISTICS, 2023
during 2016 through 2020 for leukemia, melanoma, and kidney
cancer, despite stable or increasing incidence, highlight the impact of
improved treatment. In contrast, accelerated declines in ovarian
cancer mortality, from 2% per year to almost 4% per year from 2017
through 2020 (Table 7), likely reflect steeper incidence reductions,
from 1.5% per year during the 2000s to 2.9% per year from 2015
TABLE 7Trends in mortality rates for selected cancers by sex, United States, 1975–2020
Trend 1 Trend 2 Trend 3 Trend 4 Trend 5 Trend 6 AAPC
Cancer site Years APC Years APC Years APC Years APC Years APC Years APC
2011–
2015
2016–
2020
2011–
2020
All sites
Overall 1975–1984 0.6
a
1984–1992 0.3
a
1992–2001 1.0
a
2001–2015 1.5
a
2015–2020 2.0
a
1.5
a
2.0
a
1.8
a
Male 1975–1979 1.0
a
1979–1990 0.3
a
1990–1993 0.5 1993–2001 1.5
a
2001–2015 1.8
a
2015–2020 2.2
a
1.8
a
2.2* 2.0
a
Female 1975–1990 0.6
a
1990–1995 0.2 1995–1998 1.2
a
1998–2001 0.4 2001–2016 1.4
a
2016–2020 1.9
a
1.4
a
1.9
a
1.6
a
Female breast 1975–1990 0.4
a
1990–1995 1.8
a
1995–1998 3.3
a
1998–2011 1.9
a
2011–2020 1.3
a
1.3
a
1.3
a
1.3
a
Colon & rectum
Overall 1975–1978 0.2 1978–1985 0.8
a
1985–2002 1.8
a
2002–2005 3.8
a
2005–2012 2.5
a
2012–2020 1.9
a
2.1
a
1.9
a
2.0
a
Male 1975–1979 0.6 1979–1987 0.6
a
1987–2002 1.9
a
2002–2005 4.0
a
2005–2012 2.6
a
2012–2020 2.0
a
2.1
a
2.0
a
2.0
a
Female 1975–1984 1.0
a
1984–2001 1.8
a
2001–2010 2.9
a
2010–2020 2.1
a
2.1
a
2.1
a
2.1
a
Liver & intrahepatic bile duct
Overall 1975–1980 0.2 1980–1987 2.0
a
1987–1996 3.8
a
1996–2000 0.7 2000–2015 2.5
a
2015–2020 0.5
a
2.5
a
0.5
a
0.8
a
Male 1975–1985 1.5
a
1985–1996 3.8
a
1996–1999 0.3 1999–2013 2.7
a
2013–2017 0.7 2017–2020 1.3
a
1.7
a
0.8 0.4
Female 1975–1984 0.2 1984–1995 3.1
a
1995–2008 1.2
a
2008–2014 3.1
a
2014–2020 0.5 2.5
a
0.5 1.4
a
Lung & bronchus
Overall 1975–1980 3.0
a
1980–1990 1.8
a
1990–1995 0.2 1995–2005 0.9
a
2005–2014 2.4
a
2014–2020 4.8
a
3.0
a
4.8
a
4.0
a
Male 1975–1982 1.8
a
1982–1991 0.4
a
1991–2005 1.9
a
2005–2014 3.1
a
2014–2020 5.3
a
3.6
a
5.3
a
4.6
a
Female 1975–1982 6.0
a
1982–1990 4.2
a
1990–1995 1.8
a
1995–2005 0.2
a
2005–2014 1.8
a
2014–2020 4.3
a
2.4
a
4.3
a
3.5
a
Melanoma of skin
Overall 1975–1988 1.6
a
1988–2013 0.0 2013–2017 6.3
a
2017–2020 1.3 3.2
a
2.6
a
3.3
a
Male 1975–1989 2.3
a
1989–2013 0.3
a
2013–2017 6.8
a
2017–2020 1.5 3.3
a
2.9
a
3.5
a
Female 1975–1988 0.8
a
1988–2012 0.5
a
2012–2020 3.8
a
3.0
a
3.8
a
4.0
a
Ovary 1975–1982 1.2
a
1982–1992 0.3
a
1992–1998 1.2
a
1998–2003 0.6 2003–2017 2.3
a
2017–2020 3.8
a
2.3
a
3.4
a
2.8
a
Oral cavity & pharynx
Overall 1975–1991 1.5
a
1991–2000 2.6
a
2000–2009 1.3
a
2009–2020 0.4
a
0.4
a
0.4
a
0.4
a
Male 1975–1980 0.9 1980–2006 2.2
a
2006–2020 0.4
a
0.4
a
0.4
a
0.4
a
Female 1975–1989 0.9
a
1989–2009 2.2
a
2009–2020 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Tongue, tonsil,
oropharynx
1975–2000 1.6
a
2000–2009 0.1 2009–2020 1.8
a
1.8
a
1.8
a
1.8
a
Other oral cavity 1975–1992 1.6
a
1992–2006 2.9
a
2006–2020 0.8
a
0.8
a
0.8
a
0.8
a
Pancreas
Overall 1975–2002 0.1
a
2002–2005 1.0 2005–2020 0.1
a
0.1
a
0.1
a
0.1
a
Male 1975–1986 0.8
a
1986–1998 0.3
a
1998–2020 0.2
a
0.2
a
0.2
a
0.2
a
Female 1975–1984 0.8
a
1984–2003 0.1 2003–2006 1.0 2006–2020 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Prostate 1975–1987 0.9
a
1987–1991 3.0
a
1991–1994 0.5 1994–1998 4.3
a
1998–2013 3.5
a
2013–2020 0.6
a
2.0
a
0.6
a
1.2
a
Uterine corpus 1975–1989 1.6
a
1989–1997 0.7
a
1997–2009 0.4
a
2009–2016 2.3
a
2016–2020 0.7
a
2.3
a
0.7
a
1.6
a
Note: Trends were analyzed using the Joinpoint Regression Program, version 4.9.1.0, allowing up to five joinpoints.
Abbreviations: APC, annual percent change (based on mortality rates age adjusted to the 2000 US standard population); AAPC, average annual percent
change.
a
The APC or AAPC is significantly different from zero (p<.05).
SIEGEL ET AL.
-
35
through 2019.
37
Mortality rates continue to increase for uterine
corpus cancer, by about 1% per year, and, for oral cavity cancers
associated with HPVinfection (cancers of the tongue, tonsil, and
oropharynx), by about 2% per year in men and 1% per year in women.
Recorded number of deaths in 2020
In total, 3,383,729 deaths were recorded in the United States in 2020,
an increase of 528,891 deaths over 2019 (Table 8); this was 34 times
larger than the increase from 2018 to 2019 (15,633 deaths). COVID
19 infection was the underlying cause of death for only two thirds of
the increase, highlighting a substantial excess burden in 2020 for other
causes. Most notably, the increase in heart disease deaths from 2019 to
2020 was 10fold larger than the increase from 2018 to 2019. Among
all leading causes, only chronic lower respiratory diseases had a drop in
deaths from 2019 to 2020, with a decrease in the agestandardized
death rate of 4.7%; cancer was the only other cause for which the
death rate declined (by 1.5%). The impact of the pandemic on mortality
will continue to unfold over many years and will likely parallel the
disproportionate COVID19 burden in the United States compared
with other countries. For example, a recent study found that life ex-
pectancy continued to decline in the United States between 2020 and
2021 (based on provisional data) versus a slight recovery on average in
21 peer countries, widening the gap in life expectancy between the
United States and peer countries to >5 years (76.4 vs. 81.9 years).
103
In 2020, cancer accounted for 18% of all deaths and remained
the second leading cause of death after heart diseases. However, it is
the leading cause of death among women aged 40–79 years and men
aged 60–79 years (Table 9). Table 10 presents the number of deaths
in 2020 for the five leading cancer types by age and sex. Brain and
other nervous system tumors are the leading cause of cancer death
among children and adolescents younger than 20 years. However,
CRC has surpassed brain tumors in men aged 20–39 years and is the
leading cause of cancer death among men aged 20–49 years, whereas
breast cancer leads among women in that age group. Despite being
one of the most preventable cancers, cervical cancer is consistently
the second leading cause of cancer death in women aged 20–
39 years (Table 10). Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death
in both men and women aged 50 years and older, causing far more
deaths than breast cancer, prostate cancer, and CRC combined.
Cancer disparities by race and ethnicity
Overall cancer incidence is highest among White people, followed
closely by AIAN and Black people (Table 5). However, sexspecific
incidence is highest in Black men, among whom rates during 2015
through 2019 were 79% higher than those in AAPI men, who have
the lowest rates, and 5% higher than those in White men, who rank
second. High overall cancer incidence in Black men is largely because
of prostate cancer, which is 70% higher than in White men, two times
higher than in AIAN and Hispanic men, and three times higher than in
AAPI men. Among women, AIAN and White women have the highest
incidence, which is 10% higher than that in Black women, who rank
third. However, AIAN and Black women have the highest cancer
mortality rates—16% and 12% higher, respectively—than White
women. Even more striking, Black women have 4% lower breast
cancer incidence than White women but 40% higher breast cancer
mortality, a disparity that has remained stagnant for the past decade.
TABLE 8Leading causes of death in the United States in 2020 versus 2019
2020 2019 Absolute change in
the no. of deathsCause of death No.
a
Rate
b
Percentage No.
a
Rate
b
All causes 3,383,729 835.2 2,854,838 715.7 528,891
1. Heart diseases 696,962 168.2 21 659,041 161.6 37,921
2. Cancer 602,350 143.8 18 599,601 146.0 2749
3. COVID19 350,831 85.0 10 0 350,831
4. Accidents (unintentional injuries) 200,955 57.5 6 173,040 49.2 27,915
5. Cerebrovascular diseases 160,264 38.9 5 150,005 37.0 10,259
6. Chronic lower respiratory diseases 152,657 36.4 5 156,979 38.2 4322
7. Alzheimer disease 134,242 32.6 4 121,499 29.9 12,743
8. Diabetes mellitus 102,188 24.8 3 87,647 21.6 14,541
9. Influenza and pneumonia 53,544 13.1 2 49,783 12.3 3761
10. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, & nephrosis 52,547 12.7 2 51,565 12.7 982
Abbreviation: COVID19, coronavirus disease 2019 (the respiratory disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2).
a
Counts include unknown age. Rates for 2019 may differ from those published previously because of updated population denominators.
b
Rates are per 100,000 and are age adjusted to the 2000 US standard population.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
36
-
CANCER STATISTICS, 2023
TABLE 9Ten leading causes of death in the United States by age and sex, 2020
All ages Age 1–19 years Aged 20–39 years Age 40–59 years Aged 60–79 years Aged 80 years
Ranking Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
All causes 1,769,884 1,613,845 14,339 7091 101,431 43,674 269,932 160,847 765,217 564,802 608,027 828,671
1 Heart diseases Heart diseases Accidents
(unintentional
injuries)
Accidents
(unintentional
injuries)
Accidents
(unintentional
injuries)
Accidents
(unintentional
injuries)
Heart
diseases
Cancer Cancer Cancer Heart diseases Heart diseases
382,776 314,186 5061 2312 42,831 15,525 54,798 42,175 181,355 149,254 151,989 190,889
2 Cancer Cancer Assault
(homicide)
Cancer Intentional self
harm (suicide)
Cancer Cancer Heart diseases Heart diseases Heart diseases Cancer Cancer
317,731 284,619 2714 738 13,061 4463 41,968 23,295 169,371 96,674 89,624 87,955
3 COVID19 COVID19 Intentional self
harm (suicide)
Intentional self
harm (suicide)
Assault
(homicide)
Intentional self
harm (suicide)
Accidents
(unintentional
injuries)
Accidents
(unintentional
injuries)
COVID19 COVID19 COVID19 COVID19
192,512 158,319 2079 738 11,584 3073 41,328 16,461 90,751 58,186 73,670 85,688
4 Accidents
(unintentional
injuries)
Alzheimer disease Cancer Assault
(homicide)
Heart diseases Heart diseases COVID19 COVID19 Chronic lower
respiratory diseases
Chronic lower
respiratory diseases
Cerebrovascular
disease
Alzheimer
disease
133,205 92,969 910 623 6150 2956 24,704 12,703 39,066 37,041 32,573 77,896
5 Chronic lower
respiratory
diseases
Cerebrovascular
diseases
Congenital
anomalies
Congenital
Anomalies
Cancer Assault (homicide) Chronic liver
disease &
cirrhosis
Chronic liver
disease &
cirrhosis
Diabetes mellitus Cerebrovascular
disease
Alzheimer disease Cerebrovascular
disease
72,942 90,627 465 422 3851 2039 13,050 7152 30,043 25,694 31,549 59,003
6 Cerebrovascular
diseases
Chronic lower
respiratory diseases
Heart diseases Heart diseases COVID19 COVID19 Intentional self
harm (suicide)
Diabetes mellitus Cerebrovascular
disease
Diabetes mellitus Chronic lower
respiratory
diseases
Chronic lower
respiratory diseases
69,637 79,715 334 239 3263 1641 11,154 6010 28,677 20,860 28,121 36,721
7 Diabetes mellitus Accidents
(unintentional injuries)
Chronic lower
respiratory
diseases
Influenza &
pneumonia
Chronic liver
disease &
cirrhosis
Chronic liver
disease & cirrhosis
Diabetes mellitus Chronic lower
respiratory
diseases
Accidents
(unintentional injuries)
Alzheimer disease Accidents
(unintentional
injuries)
Accidents
(unintentional injuries)
57,532 67,750 156 116 2417 1424 10,791 5489 27,169 14,780 16,111 19,359
8 Alzheimer disease Diabetes mellitus Influenza &
pneumonia
Cerebrovascular
disease
Diabetes mellitus Pregnancy,
childbirth, &
puerperium
Cerebrovascular
disease
Cerebrovascular
disease
Chronic liver disease
& cirrhosis
Accidents
(unintentional injuries)
Diabetes mellitus Diabetes mellitus
41,273 44,656 137 109 1591 1051 7384 5145 15,028 13,581 15,022 16,752
(Continues)
SIEGEL ET AL.
-
37
The highest mortality rate for both sexes combined is among
AIAN people, followed closely by Black people. The death rate in
AIAN and Black men is double that in AAPI men and 18% higher than
that in White men. Among men and women combined, the Black–
White disparity in overall cancer mortality has declined from a peak
of 33% in 1993 (279.0 vs. 210.5 per 100,000 persons, respectively) to
12% in 2020 (166.8 vs. 149.3 per 100,000 persons). Notably, progress
is driven by faster declines in smokingrelated cancers because of the
steep drop in smoking initiation among Black teens from the late
1970s to the early 1990s,
104
as opposed to targeted efforts to reduce
inequalities.
Racial disparities are largely a consequence of less access to high
quality care across the cancer continuum. However, increasing access
alone is insufficient to close these gaps. For example, even among in-
dividuals with a median annual household income of $75,000, 5year
relative cancer survival is lower among Black people (67%) than among
White people (72%).
105
Similarly, a recent study based on information
in the National Cancer Database found that Black individuals residing
in neighborhoods with the highest socioeconomic status are more
likely than White individuals residing in neighborhoods with the
lowest socioeconomic status to be diagnosed with advancedstage
lung cancer.
106
Even for childhood cancer, Black children are 24%
more likely to be diagnosed with distantstage disease than White
children, regardless of family insurance status.
107
Racial disparities in cancer occurrence and outcomes are largely
the result of longstanding inequalities in wealth that lead to differ-
ences in both risk factor exposures and access to equitable cancer
prevention, early detection, and treatment.
108,109
Ultimately,
disproportionate wealth stems from hundreds of years of structural
racism, including segregationist and discriminatory policies in crim-
inal justice, housing, education, and employment that have altered
the balance of prosperity, security, and other social determinants of
health.
110
The social determinants of health are defined by the World
Health Organization as the conditions in which individuals are born,
grow, live, work, and age
111
because these influences are consistently
and strongly associated with life expectancy and disease mortal-
ity.
112,113
The most recent example is the disproportionate impact of
the COVID19 pandemic on people of color in the United
States.
3,4,114
A recent study by researchers at the NCI observed that
Black, AIAN, and Hispanic individuals had double the rate of overall
excess deaths in 2020 compared with White individuals and had two
to four times the rate of non–COVID19–related excess deaths.
115
Furthermore, routine health care, such as mammography screening,
that was suspended early in the pandemic has been slower to
rebound among people of color.
116
Geographic variation in cancer occurrence
Tables 11 and 12 show cancer incidence and mortality rates for
selected cancers by state. State variation reflects differences in the
prevalence of cancer risk factors, such as smoking and obesity; pre-
vention and early detection practices, such as screening; and access
TABLE 9(Continued)
All ages Age 1–19 years Aged 20–39 years Age 40–59 years Aged 60–79 years Aged 80 years
Ranking Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
9 Intentional self
harm (suicide)
Influenza &
pneumonia
COVID19 Chronic lower
respiratory
diseases
Cerebrovascular
disease
Diabetes mellitus Chronic lower
respiratory
diseases
Intentional self
harm (suicide)
Nephritis, nephrotic
syndrome, & nephrosis
Nephritis, nephrotic
syndrome, & nephrosis
Parkinson disease Hypertension &
hypertensive renal
disease
a
36,551 25,799 98 100 849 964 5160 3402 12,127 10,054 14,778 14,384
10 Chronic liver
disease &
cirrhosis
Nephritis, nephrotic
syndrome, & nephrosis
Cerebrovascular
disease
COVID19 Influenza &
pneumonia
Cerebrovascular
disease
Assault
(homicide)
Septicemia Influenza &
pneumonia
Influenza &
pneumonia
Influenza &
pneumonia
Influenza & pneumonia
32,546 25,254 97 88 675 627 4258 2709 11,678 9066 11,931 13,641
Note: Deaths within each age group do not sum to all ages combined due to the inclusion of unknown ages and deaths occurring in individuals aged younger than 1 year. In accordance with the National Center
for Health Statistics' causeofdeath ranking, symptoms, signs, and abnormal clinical or laboratory findings and categories that begin with other and all other were not ranked, and assault excludes legal
intervention.
Abbreviations: COVID19 coronavirus disease 2019 (the respiratory disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2).
a
Includes primary and secondary hypertension.
Source: US Final Mortality Data, 2020: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022.
38
-
CANCER STATISTICS, 2023
to care. The largest geographic variation is for the most preventable
cancers, such as lung cancer, cervical cancer, and melanoma of the
skin. For example, lung cancer incidence and mortality rates in
Kentucky, where smoking prevalence was historically highest, are
three to four times higher than those in Utah and Puerto Rico, where
it was lowest. These patterns are also consistent with contemporary
smoking prevalence. In 2020, the highest smoking prevalence was in
West Virginia (23%), Kentucky (21%), Mississippi (20%), and Arkan-
sas (20%) compared with 8% in Utah and California and 10% in New
Jersey, Maryland, and Puerto Rico.
117
Despite being one of the most preventable cancers, cervical
cancer incidence varies 2fold by state, ranging from 5 or less per
100,000 women in Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and
Maine to 10 per 100,000 women in Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Ala-
bama and 13 per 100,000 women in Puerto Rico (Table 11). Ironi-
cally, advances in cancer control typically exacerbate disparities
because of the unequal dissemination of interventions across pop-
ulations. Although HPV vaccination can virtually eliminate cervical
cancer,
66
large state differences in coverage will likely widen existing
disparities. In 2020, uptodate HPV vaccination among boys and
TABLE 10 Five leading causes of cancer death in the United States by age and sex, 2020
Ranking All ages Birth to 19 years
Aged 20–39
years
Aged 40–49
years
Aged 50–64
years
Aged 65–79
years
Aged 80 years
and older
Male
All sites 317,731 932 3851 8655 70,248 144,420 89,624
1 Lung & bronchus Brain & ONS Colon & rectum Colon & rectum Lung & bronchus Lung & bronchus Lung & bronchus
72,949 282 562 1574 16,517 37,860 17,329
2 Prostate Leukemia Brain & ONS Lung & bronchus Colon & rectum Prostate Prostate
32,707 218 541 1059 7860 13,407 15,995
3 Colon & rectum Bones & joints Leukemia Brain & ONS Pancreas Pancreas Colon & rectum
28,043 107 433 813 6024 12,080 7159
4 Pancreas Soft tissue
(including heart)
Testis Pancreas Liver
a
Colon & rectum Urinary bladder
24,279 88 212 696 5650 10,884 5751
5 Liver
a
Liver
a
NonHodgkin
lymphoma
Esophagus Esophagus Liver
a
Pancreas
18,636 27 198 405 3614 9298 5369
Female
All sites 284,619 770 4463 10,241 62,434 118,754 87,955
1 Lung & bronchus Brain & ONS Breast Breast Lung & bronchus Lung & bronchus Lung & bronchus
63,135 240 1062 2823 13,771 30,643 17,658
2 Breast Leukemia Uterine cervix Colon & rectum Breast Breast Breast
42,275 174 487 1158 11,337 15,461 11,590
3 Colon & rectum Bones & joints Colon & rectum Lung & bronchus Colon & rectum Pancreas Colon & rectum
23,826 89 394 902 5236 10,375 8862
4 Pancreas Soft tissue
(including heart)
Brain & ONS Uterine cervix Pancreas Colon & rectum Pancreas
22,495 66 333 709 4322 8173 7285
5 Ovary Kidney & renal
pelvis
Leukemia Ovary Ovary Ovary Leukemia
13,438 31 314 553 3532 5898 4108
Note: Ranking order excludes "other" categories.
Abbreviation: ONS, other nervous system.
a
Includes intrahepatic bile duct.
SIEGEL ET AL.
-
39
TABLE 11 Incidence rates for selected cancers by state, United States, 2015–2019
a
All sites Breast Colon & rectum
b
Lung & bronchus
NonHodgkin
lymphoma Prostate
Uterine
cervix
State Male Female Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Alabama 514.5 406.1 122.8 47.1 35.2 79.5 49.3 19.6 12.8 124.0 9.5
Alaska 435.0 406.0 122.0 42.5 36.4 59.4 49.2 21.1 14.6 92.0 7.7
Arizona 404.5 367.2 114.6 34.5 26.1 47.3 40.6 18.3 12.0 77.6 6.5
Arkansas 547.3 436.3 122.3 49.8 36.1 91.8 62.4 22.9 15.0 118.5 9.5
California 427.9 387.7 123.1 37.9 28.9 43.8 36.0 21.7 14.9 95.2 7.4
Colorado 414.1 387.8 130.4 34.3 26.9 41.5 38.1 20.8 13.9 93.2 6.2
Connecticut 511.0 445.6 141.1 38.0 28.0 61.9 54.2 25.9 17.6 123.2 5.6
Delaware 520.0 442.0 136.1 40.7 30.2 68.8 56.2 22.6 15.2 125.9 7.7
District of
Columbia
447.7 400.6 136.3 37.4 30.6 48.6 40.8 17.8 11.8 131.3 7.8
Florida 498.2 433.1 122.3 39.7 30.0 63.6 49.9 26.6 19.0 97.9 9.2
Georgia 531.8 423.6 129.1 45.6 32.8 72.9 49.8 22.0 14.7 132.6 8.0
Hawaii 442.2 402.2 140.2 43.9 32.0 52.9 35.5 18.4 12.4 100.3 6.8
Idaho 487.0 418.2 129.4 38.0 28.9 51.6 45.2 23.0 15.9 115.5 7.4
Illinois 501.4 443.0 134.0 46.0 33.9 69.1 55.6 23.2 16.2 113.3 7.5
Indiana 497.8 430.3 124.3 45.4 34.1 80.5 60.7 22.1 15.1 99.9 8.4
Iowa 535.8 460.2 135.1 45.5 35.1 72.2 54.8 25.8 17.4 119.0 7.7
Kansas 496.1 435.5 133.1 43.4 32.7 61.5 49.5 23.6 15.5 114.0 8.1
Kentucky 564.0 484.5 128.3 52.4 38.4 100.9 76.7 23.1 16.7 108.0 9.8
Louisiana 557.3 429.7 128.4 51.1 36.7 78.2 51.9 22.6 15.6 138.5 9.2
Maine 506.6 457.3 128.2 37.6 30.3 76.0 66.3 26.2 15.6 97.0 5.4
Maryland 494.9 427.5 133.6 38.6 30.8 59.2 50.1 21.7 14.8 132.7 6.7
Massachusetts 484.9 437.6 137.6 36.7 27.9 63.2 58.2 23.4 15.5 111.6 5.3
Michigan 485.1 420.2 124.2 39.8 31.0 68.7 56.3 23.5 16.1 110.6 6.9
Minnesota 508.2 447.2 135.6 39.8 30.2 60.2 52.1 26.5 17.1 113.2 5.6
Mississippi 552.0 419.9 123.3 54.8 39.6 92.9 57.5 20.6 14.0 135.6 9.3
Missouri 484.6 433.2 131.9 43.5 32.9 79.8 62.0 22.1 15.4 95.6 8.4
Montana 503.9 435.7 136.8 42.0 28.9 50.4 49.9 21.3 14.7 130.7 7.0
Nebraska 510.1 442.6 131.6 44.2 35.8 61.2 49.8 23.7 17.2 127.9 7.7
Nevada
c
394.4 367.2 109.4 38.6 29.8 46.9 46.2 17.5 11.9 86.4 8.5
New Hampshire 517.1 459.9 142.1 38.9 28.9 65.4 60.8 25.0 17.8 114.1 5.3
New Jersey 536.3 458.8 138.8 44.1 32.8 58.5 50.1 26.6 18.2 140.1 7.7
New Mexico 389.7 365.2 114.4 36.4 27.9 40.5 32.5 17.0 12.5 84.2 8.4
New York 529.4 456.6 135.7 41.7 31.1 63.7 53.4 25.8 18.1 130.7 7.7
North Carolina 522.0 434.2 137.7 39.8 30.0 77.8 55.4 21.7 14.6 122.9 7.0
North Dakota 487.0 433.2 135.2 44.7 33.8 61.6 53.5 22.1 15.1 121.6 5.9
Ohio 510.8 446.2 130.6 44.6 33.6 77.1 58.8 23.5 15.9 112.5 7.9
Oklahoma 490.4 423.7 124.2 45.9 34.1 76.5 57.2 20.3 15.0 100.4 9.7
Oregon 449.2 415.8 130.6 36.2 28.2 54.7 48.7 22.1 14.8 96.4 6.8
Pennsylvania 513.6 454.4 132.0 43.7 33.0 69.9 55.6 24.2 17.3 109.2 7.4
40
-
CANCER STATISTICS, 2023
girls aged 13–17 years ranged from 32% in Mississippi and 43% in
West Virginia to 73% in Massachusetts, 74% in Hawaii, and 83% in
Rhode Island.
118
State/territory differences in initiatives to improve
health, such as Medicaid expansion, may also contribute to future
geographic disparities.
119,120
Cancer in children and adolescents
Cancer is the second most common cause of death among children
aged 1–14 years in the United States, surpassed only by accidents,
and is the fourth most common cause of death among adolescents
(aged 15–19 years). In 2023, an estimated 9910 children (from birth
to age 14 years) and 5280 adolescents (aged 15–19 years) will be
diagnosed with cancer, and 1040 and 550, respectively, will die from
the disease. About 1 in 260 children and adolescents will be diag-
nosed with cancer before age 20 years.
9
Leukemia is the most common childhood cancer, accounting for
28% of cases, followed by brain and other nervous system tumors
(26%), nearly one third of which are benign or borderline malignant
(Table 13). Cancer types and their distribution in adolescents differ
from those in children; for example, brain and other nervous system
tumors, more than one half of which are benign or borderline ma-
lignant, are the most common cancer (21%), followed closely by
lymphoma (19%). In addition, there are one half as many cases of
nonHodgkin lymphoma as Hodgkin lymphoma among adolescents;
whereas, among children, the reverse is true. Thyroid carcinoma and
melanoma of the skin account for 12% and 3% of cancers, respect-
fully, in adolescents but for only 2% and 1% of cancers in children.
The overall cancer incidence rate stabilized in children during
2010 through 2019 after increasing since at least 1975, but
continued to rise in adolescents by 1% per year. In contrast, death
rates per 100,000 persons declined from 1970 through 2020
continuously from 6.3 to 1.9 per 100,000 persons in children and
from 7.2 to 2.6 per 100,000 persons in adolescents, for overall
reductions of 70% and 64%, respectively. Much of this progress
reflects the dramatic declines in mortality for leukemia of 84% in
children and 75% in adolescents. Remission rates of 90%–100%
have been achieved for childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia over
the past 4 decades, primarily through the optimization of estab-
lished chemotherapeutic regimens as opposed to the development
of new therapies.
121
However, progress among adolescents has
lagged behind that in children, partly because of differences in
tumor biology, clinical trial enrollment, treatment protocols, and
tolerance and compliance with treatment.
122
Mortality reductions
from 1970 to 2020 are also lower in adolescents for other com-
mon cancers, including nonHodgkin lymphoma (94% in children
and 88% in adolescents) and brain and other nervous system
TABLE 11 (Continued)
All sites Breast Colon & rectum
b
Lung & bronchus
NonHodgkin
lymphoma Prostate
Uterine
cervix
State Male Female Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Rhode Island 511.7 456.0 142.2 36.0 27.2 74.5 63.7 23.4 15.7 114.9 6.9
South Carolina 494.0 407.1 130.9 41.5 30.4 74.6 50.7 20.0 12.9 113.3 7.9
South Dakota 487.5 428.3 125.4 44.4 32.9 60.7 53.2 22.3 15.5 120.3 6.3
Tennessee 524.2 424.7 123.8 44.6 32.8 87.3 61.9 21.7 14.5 117.2 8.1
Texas 458.9 384.9 117.0 44.0 30.2 57.6 41.0 20.9 14.3 102.7 9.4
Utah 445.9 378.3 115.8 30.2 24.1 30.2 23.0 22.2 14.8 117.2 5.5
Vermont 479.1 444.6 132.6 37.8 27.9 64.2 54.2 22.7 16.1 98.6 4.8
Virginia 437.9 391.3 126.1 37.6 28.9 61.3 47.7 20.0 13.9 100.3 6.0
Washington 467.7 425.7 133.3 37.0 28.8 54.9 49.1 23.3 15.9 100.0 6.7
West Virginia 517.7 467.5 121.7 49.8 38.0 89.1 69.2 23.4 16.9 98.3 9.4
Wisconsin 512.2 441.9 135.1 38.6 29.9 65.3 53.4 25.6 17.3 118.3 6.5
Wyoming 433.1 384.8 113.0 36.0 28.8 43.2 40.8 19.9 13.9 113.6 8.2
Puerto Rico
d
411.7 337.5 98.5 47.7 32.6 21.7 11.4 17.3 12.5 148.6 12.6
United States 488.2 423.3 128.1 41.5 31.2 64.1 50.3 22.9 15.7 109.9 7.7
a
Rates are per 100,000, age adjusted to the 2000 US standard population.
b
Rates exclude appendix except for Nevada.
c
Data for this state are not included in US combined rates because it did not meet highquality standards for all years during 2015 through 2019
according to the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR). Rates for this state are based on data published in the NAACCR's
Cancer in North America, Volume II.
d
Data for Puerto Rico are not included in US combined rates for comparability with previously published US rates. Puerto Rico incidence data for 2017
reflect diagnoses from January through June due to disruptions caused by hurricane Irma.
SIEGEL ET AL.
-
41
TABLE 12 Mortality rates for selected cancers by state, United States, 2016–2020
a
State
All sites Breast Colorectum
Lung &
bronchus
NonHodgkin
lymphoma Pancreas Prostate
Male Female Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male
Alabama 207.4 137.2 20.9 18.1 12.0 59.6 33.1 6.7 3.5 14.0 10.1 20.2
Alaska 170.3 127.2 17.1 16.0 13.8 36.8 29.1 6.3 4.6 12.2 8.8 19.6
Arizona 154.8 113.6 18.0 14.6 10.0 31.9 24.2 5.8 3.3 11.8 8.8 17.1
Arkansas 206.5 141.7 19.5 17.9 12.4 61.0 38.5 6.8 3.8 13.0 9.5 18.6
California 158.3 118.2 18.8 14.2 10.3 29.8 21.6 6.4 3.8 11.7 9.1 19.8
Colorado 152.8 113.1 18.7 13.1 9.8 27.0 22.0 6.0 3.3 10.9 8.6 21.9
Connecticut 162.2 118.2 17.5 12.6 8.5 34.9 26.9 6.5 3.7 12.4 9.6 18.1
Delaware 190.4 133.8 20.8 15.6 10.8 45.8 33.1 7.5 3.9 14.7 10.4 17.7
District of Columbia 171.5 136.3 23.5 15.9 12.4 33.2 22.4 5.3 3.3 14.0 12.2 26.9
Florida 166.5 121.2 18.5 14.8 10.3 40.6 28.4 6.1 3.7 12.2 8.9 16.1
Georgia 186.7 129.5 20.8 17.1 11.6 48.2 28.9 6.1 3.6 12.7 9.5 21.2
Hawaii 151.4 105.5 15.9 14.1 9.8 33.6 20.8 5.8 3.5 12.2 9.4 14.9
Idaho 169.7 126.7 20.0 14.4 10.9 32.4 25.5 6.6 4.7 12.6 9.3 21.1
Illinois 183.3 135.7 20.5 16.8 11.7 44.7 31.8 6.8 4.0 13.5 10.1 19.5
Indiana 201.3 142.2 20.4 17.4 12.4 55.3 36.9 7.6 4.5 13.9 10.3 19.5
Iowa 185.3 131.4 18.1 16.2 11.4 45.8 31.8 7.5 4.2 12.6 9.7 20.3
Kansas 183.7 134.9 19.8 16.8 11.9 44.7 32.9 7.1 4.4 13.0 9.4 18.1
Kentucky 220.3 155.3 21.6 19.2 13.6 67.0 45.3 7.7 4.6 13.0 10.2 18.3
Louisiana 205.6 140.6 22.4 19.2 12.8 56.4 33.5 7.0 4.0 13.8 10.8 19.9
Maine 196.4 140.8 17.7 14.6 11.5 50.0 38.8 7.4 4.1 12.9 10.0 19.0
Maryland 175.4 130.6 21.0 15.7 11.3 39.1 29.3 6.6 3.5 13.1 9.8 20.1
Massachusetts 172.6 123.1 16.5 13.1 9.3 38.4 30.2 6.5 3.8 13.5 9.9 18.2
Michigan 189.4 139.6 20.2 15.7 11.5 48.0 35.0 7.6 4.6 14.1 10.9 18.6
Minnesota 169.9 125.0 17.4 14.0 9.9 36.1 28.7 7.8 4.0 12.6 9.7 19.6
Mississippi 225.9 148.5 23.5 21.9 14.0 67.0 36.3 6.5 3.6 14.3 11.0 24.3
Missouri 195.7 139.0 19.8 16.7 11.3 53.8 37.3 7.0 4.1 13.7 9.5 17.8
Montana 167.9 125.6 18.3 14.4 9.8 32.8 28.8 6.4 3.5 11.4 9.2 22.3
Nebraska 175.6 132.2 20.4 16.8 12.2 39.6 29.3 7.1 3.7 13.9 10.1 18.1
Nevada 171.1 133.6 21.8 17.1 12.4 37.3 32.8 6.5 3.9 11.8 9.3 19.4
New Hampshire 178.5 130.0 18.0 14.7 10.1 41.2 34.0 6.4 4.1 12.6 9.7 19.2
New Jersey 162.7 126.4 20.3 15.3 11.1 35.0 26.8 6.4 3.7 12.8 10.1 16.7
New Mexico 159.1 116.2 19.9 15.3 10.2 28.4 19.8 5.6 3.4 11.4 8.2 19.3
New York 159.8 121.7 18.6 14.0 10.2 35.7 26.0 6.4 3.7 12.6 9.7 16.8
North Carolina 187.5 131.0 20.0 14.9 10.7 50.7 31.9 6.7 3.6 12.5 9.6 19.7
North Dakota 167.8 122.8 17.2 16.3 10.4 39.4 28.1 6.5 3.5 12.1 9.0 17.7
Ohio 199.6 142.0 21.0 17.4 12.2 53.1 35.2 7.5 4.3 14.0 10.6 19.3
Oklahoma 209.2 149.6 22.4 19.6 13.5 57.0 38.2 7.7 4.7 12.8 9.7 20.0
Oregon 174.0 132.6 19.3 14.2 10.6 36.7 30.4 7.3 4.3 12.9 10.0 20.3
Pennsylvania 187.7 135.9 20.3 16.5 11.5 45.3 31.2 7.3 4.4 14.0 10.4 18.4
Rhode Island 182.6 130.9 17.3 12.6 10.9 43.3 33.5 7.1 3.9 14.7 9.4 18.4
42
-
CANCER STATISTICS, 2023
tumors (39% and 25%, respectively). The 5year relative survival
rate for all cancers combined improved from 58% during the mid
1970s to 85% during 2012 through 2018 in children and from
68% to 86% in adolescents, but varies substantially by cancer type
and age at diagnosis (Table 13).
LIMITATIONS
The estimated numbers of new cancer cases and deaths in 2023
provide a reasonably accurate portrayal of the contemporary cancer
burden. However, they are modelbased, 3year (mortality) and 4
year (incidence) ahead projections that should not be used to track
trends over time for several reasons. First, new methodologies are
adopted regularly, most recently as of the 2021 estimates,
26,27
to
take advantage of improved modeling techniques and cancer sur-
veillance coverage. Second, although the models are robust, they can
only account for trends through the most recent data year (currently,
2019 for incidence and 2020 for mortality) and thus do not reflect
reduced access to cancer care because of the COVID19 pandemic.
Similarly, the models cannot anticipate abrupt fluctuations for can-
cers affected by changes in detection practice, such as those that
occur for prostate cancer because of changes in PSA testing. Third,
the model can be oversensitive to sudden or steep changes in
observed data. The most informative metrics for tracking cancer
trends are agestandardized or agespecific cancer incidence rates
from the SEER Program, the NPCR, and/or the NAACCR and cancer
death rates from the NCHS.
Errors in reporting race and ethnicity in medical records and on
death certificates result in underestimated cancer incidence and
mortality in persons who are not White, particularly Native Amer-
ican populations. Although racial misclassification in mortality data
among Native Americans is somewhat mitigated because of newly
available adjustment factors published by researchers at the NCHS,
these are currently only available for all cancers combined.
22
It is
also important to note that cancer data in the United States are
primarily reported for broad, heterogeneous racial and ethnic
groups, masking important differences in the cancer burden within
these populations. For example, although lung cancer incidence is
approximately 50% lower in AAPI men than in White men overall, it
is equivalent in Native Hawaiian men, who are classified within this
broad category.
123
CONCLUSION
The cancer mortality rate has decreased continuously since 1991,
resulting in an overall drop of 33% and approximately 3.8 million
cancer deaths averted. This steady progress is because of re-
ductions in smoking; uptake of screening for breast, colorectal, and
prostate cancers; and improvements in treatment, such as adjuvant
chemotherapies for colon and breast cancers. More recently, ad-
vances in the development of targeted treatment and immuno-
therapy have accelerated progress in lung cancer mortality well
beyond reductions in incidence and are reflected in large mortality
reductions for cancers with increasing or stable incidence (leuke-
mia, melanoma, and kidney cancer). Treatment breakthroughs have
particularly improved the management of some difficulttotreat
cancers, such as nonsmall cell lung cancer and metastatic mela-
noma. Of concern are rising incidence for breast, prostate, and
TABLE 12 (Continued)
State
All sites Breast Colorectum
Lung &
bronchus
NonHodgkin
lymphoma Pancreas Prostate
Male Female Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male
South Carolina 193.7 132.4 21.5 16.8 10.7 50.7 30.3 6.0 3.9 13.5 9.8 20.8
South Dakota 181.4 132.4 18.9 16.9 12.2 41.4 32.6 7.5 4.3 12.9 9.9 19.1
Tennessee 207.7 142.7 21.6 17.9 12.2 59.5 37.3 7.4 4.2 12.8 9.8 19.5
Texas 173.8 122.5 19.7 17.1 11.0 39.1 25.1 6.6 3.8 12.0 9.1 17.6
Utah 140.5 104.7 19.8 11.9 9.4 19.8 13.8 6.5 3.5 11.1 8.2 21.8
Vermont 185.0 134.3 16.4 15.9 12.7 41.5 32.2 7.5 4.4 11.9 10.3 21.1
Virginia 179.8 127.9 20.6 15.9 10.9 44.0 28.7 6.6 3.8 13.0 9.6 20.0
Washington 170.0 127.5 19.2 14.0 9.9 35.8 28.7 6.9 4.1 12.2 9.7 20.0
West Virginia 211.3 151.4 21.2 20.0 13.7 60.6 41.0 7.9 4.3 12.6 9.6 17.0
Wisconsin 181.5 131.2 18.4 14.2 10.4 41.1 31.2 7.5 4.2 13.7 10.0 20.8
Wyoming 159.8 120.3 18.6 13.6 10.9 32.4 26.2 6.2 4.0 12.6 8.6 18.4
Puerto Rico
b
132.1 86.4 19.6 17.7 10.7 14.8 7.2 4.3 2.6 7.9 5.2 21.4
United States 177.5 128.7 19.6 15.7 11.0 42.2 29.3 6.7 3.9 12.7 9.6 18.8
a
Rates are per 100,000 and age adjusted to the 2000 US standard population.
b
Rates for Puerto Rico are not included in US combined rates.
SIEGEL ET AL.
-
43
uterine corpus cancers, all of which have a wide racial disparity in
mortality and are amenable to early detection. Expanding access to
care and increasing investment for the broad application of
existing cancer control interventions and for research to advance
treatment options and develop successful interventions to reduce
inequalities would help mitigate disparities and accelerate progress
against cancer.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge all cancer registries and their
staff for their hard work and diligence in collecting cancer informa-
tion, without which this research could not have been accomplished.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
All authors are employed by the American Cancer Society, which re-
ceives grants from private and corporate foundations, including
foundations associated with companies in the health sector for
research outside of the submitted work. The authors are not funded by
or key personnel for any of these grants, and their salaries are solely
funded through American Cancer Society funds.
ORCID
Rebecca L. Siegel
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5247-8522
Kimberly D. Miller https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2609-2260
Nikita Sandeep Wagle https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1337-483X
TABLE 13 Incidence rates, case distribution, and 5year relative survival by age and International Classification of Childhood Cancer
type, ages birth to 19 years, United States
a
Cancer site
Birth to 14 years Aged 15–19 years
Incidence rate
per million
b
Distribution,
%
Survival,
c
%
Incidence rate
per million
b
Distribution,
%
Survival,
c
%
All ICCC groups combined (malignant only) 173.4 100 85 242.3 100 86
Leukemias, myeloproliferative & myelodysplastic
diseases
53.1 28 88 35.6 13 76
Lymphoid leukemia 40.3 21 92 18.6 7 77
Acute myeloid leukemia 7.8 4 68 9.1 3 68
Lymphomas and reticuloendothelial neoplasms 22.2 12 95 53.0 19 94
Hodgkin lymphoma 5.8 3 99 31.8 11 98
NonHodgkin lymphoma (including Burkitt) 10.3 5 91 19.3 7 89
Central nervous system neoplasms 48.6 26 74 59.4 21 75
Benign/borderline malignant tumors 15.2 8 97 37.7 13 98
Neuroblastoma & other peripheral nervous cell tumors 11.6 6 82 1.1 <1 78.
d
Retinoblastoma 4.2 2 97 <0.1 <1
e
Nephroblastoma & other nonepithelial renal tumors 8.2 4 93 0.3 <1
e
Hepatic tumors 3.1 2 79 1.4 <1 46.
d
Hepatoblastoma 2.7 1 82 <0.1 <1
e
Malignant bone tumors 7.8 4 74 14.6 5 69
Osteosarcoma 4.3 2 69 8.0 3 67
Ewing tumor & related bone sarcomas 2.7 1 78 4.6 2 64
Rhabdomyosarcoma 5.2 3 71 3.7 1 54.
d
Germ cell & gonadal tumors 5.7 3 91 27.0 10 94
Thyroid carcinoma 3.6 2 >99 33.8 12 >99
Malignant melanoma 1.8 1 96 8.7 3 96
Abbreviation: ICCC, International Classification of Childhood Cancer.
a
Benign and borderline brain tumors were excluded from survival rates but included in incidence rates for central nervous system neoplasms and
denominators for case distribution.
b
Incidence rates are based on diagnoses during 20152019 and ageadjusted to the US standard population.
c
Survival rates are adjusted for normal life expectancy and are based on diagnoses during 20122018 and followup of all patients through 2019.
d
The standard error of the survival rate is between 5 and 10 percentage points.
e
The statistic could not be calculated because there were <25 cases during 2012 through 2018.
44
-
CANCER STATISTICS, 2023
REFERENCES
1. Ghoshal S, Rigney G, Cheng D, et al. Institutional surgical response
and associated volume trends throughout the COVID19 pandemic
and postvaccination recovery period. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(8):
e2227443. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.27443
2. Yabroff KR, Wu XC, Negoita S, et al. Association of the COVID19
pandemic with patterns of statewide cancer services. J Natl Cancer
Inst. 2022;114(6):907–909.
3. Chen R, Aschmann HE, Chen YH, et al. Racial and ethnic disparities
in estimated excess mortality from external causes in the US,
March to December 2020. JAMA Intern Med. 2022;182(7):776778.
doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.1461
4. Woolf SH, Chapman DA, Sabo RT, Zimmerman EB. Excess deaths
from COVID19 and other causes in the US, March 1, 2020, to
January 2, 2021. JAMA. 2021;325(17):1786. doi:10.1001/jama.
2021.5199
5. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
SEER*Stat Database: IncidenceSEER Research Data with Delay
Adjustment, 8 Registries, Malignant Only (19752019), based on
the November 2021 submission. National Cancer Institute, Divi-
sion of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Surveillance
Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch; 2022.
6. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
SEER*Stat Database: IncidenceSEER Research Data, 9 Registries
(19752018), based on the November 2020 submission. National
Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sci-
ences, Surveillance Research Program; 2021.
7. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
SEER*Stat Database: IncidenceSEER Research Data, 17 Registries
(20002019), based on the November 2021 submission. National
Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sci-
ences, Surveillance Research Program; 2022.
8. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
SEER*Stat Database: IncidenceSEER Research Data with Delay
Adjustment, 17 Registries, Malignant Only (20002019), based on
the November 2021 submission. National Cancer Institute, Divi-
sion of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Surveillance
Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch; 2022.
9. Statistical Methodology and Applications Branch, National Cancer
Institute. DevCan: Probability of Developing or Dying of Cancer
Software, version 6.8.0. Surveillance Research Program, Statistical
Methodology and Applications Branch, National Cancer Institute;
2022.2.
10. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
SEER*Stat Database: North American Association of Central Can-
cer Registries (NAACCR) Incidence DataCancer in North America
(CiNA) Analytic File, 19952019, with Race/Ethnicity, Custom File
With County, American Cancer Society Facts & Figures Projection
Project (which includes data from the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries, the Ca-
nadian Counsel of Cancer Registry’s Provincial and Territorial
Registries, and the National Cancer Institute’s SEER Registries),
certified by the NAACCR as meeting highquality incidence data
standards for the specified time periods, submitted December
2021. National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and
Population Sciences, Surveillance Research Program, Surveillance
Systems Branch; 2022.
11. Sherman R, Firth R, Kahl A, et al. Cancer in North America: 2015
2019. Volume Two: RegistrySpecific Cancer Incidence in the
United States and Canada North American Association of Central
Cancer Registries, Inc.; 2022.
12. Sherman R, Firth R, Kahl A, et al. Cancer in North America: 2015
2019, Volume One: Combined Cancer Incidence for the United
States, Canada, and North America. North American Association of
Central Cancer Registries, Inc.; 2022.
13. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
SEER*Stat Database: MortalityAll Causes of Death, Total U.S.
(19692020) (with underlying mortality data provided by the Na-
tional Center for Health Statistics). National Cancer Institute, Di-
vision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Surveillance
Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch; 2022.
14. Wingo PA, Cardinez CJ, Landis SH, et al. Longterm trends in
cancer mortality in the United States, 19301998. Cancer.
2003;97(12 suppl):31333275. doi:10.1002/cncr.11380
15. Murphy SL, Kochanek KD, Xu J, Heron M. Deaths: final data for
2012. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2015;31(8):1–117.
16. SteliarovaFoucher E, Stiller C, Lacour B, Kaatsch P. International
Classification of Childhood Cancer, third edition. Cancer.
2005;103(7):14571467. doi:10.1002/cncr.20910
17. Fritz A, Percy C, Jack A, et al., eds. International Classification of
Diseases for Oncology. 3rd ed. World Health Organization; 2000.
18. SteliarovaFoucher E, Colombet M, Ries LAG, et al. International
incidence of childhood cancer, 200110: a populationbased reg-
istry study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(6):719731.
19. World Health Organization. International Statistical Classification
of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision, Volumes
IIII. World Health Organization; 2011.
20. Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute. SEER*-
Stat software, version 8.4.0. Surveillance Research Program, Na-
tional Cancer Institute; 2022.
21. Statistical Research and Applications Branch, National Cancer
Institute. Joinpoint Regression Program, version 4.9.1.0. Statistical
Research and Applications Branch, National Cancer Institute; 2022.
22. Arias E, Xu J, Curtin S, Bastian B, TejadaVera B. Mortality profile
of the nonHispanic American Indian or Alaska Native population,
2019. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2021;70(12):127.
23. Mariotto AB, Zou Z, Johnson CJ, Scoppa S, Weir HK, Huang B.
Geographical, racial and socioeconomic variation in life expec-
tancy in the US and their impact on cancer relative survival. PLoS
One. 2018;13(7):e0201034. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0201034
24. Clegg LX, Feuer EJ, Midthune DN, Fay MP, Hankey BF. Impact of
reporting delay and reporting error on cancer incidence rates and
trends. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(20):15371545. doi:10.1093/
jnci/94.20.1537
25. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program.
SEER*Stat Database: North American Association of Central Can-
cer Registries (NAACCR) Incidence DataCancer in North America
(CiNA) Research Data, 20152019, DelayAdjusted Factors
American Cancer Society Facts & Figures (which includes data
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National
Program of Cancer Registries, the Canadian Council of Cancer
Registry’s Provincial and Territorial Registries, and the National
Cancer Institute’s SEER Registries), certified by the NAACCR,
submitted December 2021. National Cancer Institute, Division of
Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Surveillance Research
Program, Surveillance Systems Branch; 2022.
26. Liu B, Zhu L, Zou J, et al. Updated methodology for projecting U.S.
and statelevel cancer counts for the current calendar year: part I:
spatiotemporal modeling for cancer incidence. Cancer Epidemiol
Biomarkers Prev. 2021;30(9):16201626. doi:10.1158/10559965.
epi201727
27. Miller KD, Siegel RL, Liu B, et al. Updated methodology for projecting
U.S.and statelevel cancer counts for the current calendar year:
part II: evaluation of incidence and mortality projection methods.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2021;30(11):1993–2000. doi:10.
1158/10559965.epi201780
28. Pickle LW, Hao Y, Jemal A, et al. A new method of estimating
United States and statelevel cancer incidence counts for the
current calendar year. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(1):3042. doi:10.
3322/canjclin.57.1.30
SIEGEL ET AL.
-
45
29. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
SEER*Stat Database: North American Association of Central Can-
cer Registries (NAACCR) Incidence Data–Cancer in North America
(CiNA) Research Data, 20012019, DelayAdjusted Factors
American Cancer Society Facts & Figures (which includes data
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National
Program of Cancer Registries, the Canadian Council of Cancer
Registry’s Provincial and Territorial Registries, and the National
Cancer Institute’s SEER Registries), certified by the NAACCR,
submitted December 2021. National Cancer Institute, Division of
Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Surveillance Research
Program, Surveillance Systems Branch; 2022.
30. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
SEER*Stat Database: PopulationsTotal United States (19692020)
<Katrina/Rita Adjustment>Linked To County AttributesTotal U.
S., 19692020 Counties. National Cancer Institute, Division of
Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Surveillance Research
Program; 2022.
31. Jackson SS, Marks MA, Katki HA, et al. Sex disparities in the inci-
dence of 21 cancer types: quantification of the contribution of risk
factors. Cancer. 2022;128(19):35313540. doi:10.1002/cncr.34390
32. Choi YJ, Lee DH, Han KD, et al. Adult height in relation to risk of
cancer in a cohort of 22, 809, 722 Korean adults. Br J Cancer.
2019;120(6):668674. doi:10.1038/s4141601803718
33. Green J, Cairns BJ, Casabonne D, Wright FL, Reeves G, Beral V.
Height and cancer incidence in the Million Women Study: pro-
spective cohort, and metaanalysis of prospective studies of height
and total cancer risk. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(8):785794. doi:10.
1016/s14702045(11)701541
34. Klein SL, Flanagan KL. Sex differences in immune responses. Nat
Rev Immunol. 2016;16:626638.
35. Islami F, Sauer AG, Miller KD, et al. Proportion and number of
cancer cases and deaths attributable to potentially modifiable
factors in the United States in 2014. CA Cancer J Clin.
2018;68(1):31–54. doi:10.3322/caac.21440
36. Potosky AL, Miller BA, Albertsen PC, Kramer BS. The role of
increasing detection in the rising incidence of prostate cancer. JAMA.
1995;273(7):548552. doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520310046028
37. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
SEER*Stat Database: North American Association of Central Can-
cer Registries (NAACCR) Incidence DataCancer in North America
(CiNA) Research Data, 19982019, DelayAdjusted Factors
American Cancer Society Facts & Figures (which includes data
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National
Program of Cancer Registries, the Canadian Council of Cancer
Registry’s Provincial and Territorial Registries, and the National
Cancer Institute’s SEER Registries), certified by the NAACCR,
submitted December 2021. National Cancer Institute, Division of
Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Surveillance Research
Program, Surveillance Systems Branch; 2022.
38. Jemal A, Fedewa SA, Ma J, et al. Prostate cancer incidence and PSA
testing patterns in relation to USPSTF screening recommendations.
JAMA. 2015;314(19):20542061. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.14905
39. Moyer VA, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for
prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommen-
dation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(2):120134. doi:10.
7326/00034819157220120717000459
40. Borregales LD, DeMeo G, Gu X, et al. Grade migration of prostate
cancer in the United States during the last decade. J Natl Cancer
Inst. 2022;114(7):10121019. doi:10.1093/jnci/djac066
41. Fenton J, Weyrick M, Durbin S, Liu Y, Bang H, Melnikow J. Prostate
Specific AntigenBased Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic
Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Report no.
1705229EF1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality;
2018.
42. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force; Grossman DC, Curry SJ, et al.
Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018;319(18):19011913.
43. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRItargeted or
standard biopsy for prostatecancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med.
2018;378(19):17671777. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1801993
44. Nordstrom T, Discacciati A, Bergman M, et al. Prostate cancer
screening using a combination of riskprediction, MRI, and targeted
prostate biopsies (STHLM3MRI): a prospective, populationbased,
randomised, openlabel, noninferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;
22(9):12401249. doi:10.1016/s14702045(21)00348x
45. Sherer MV, Qiao EM, Kotha NV, Qian AS, Rose BS. Association
between prostatespecific antigen screening and prostate cancer
mortality among nonHispanic Black and nonHispanic White US
veterans. JAMA Oncol. 2022;8(10):14711476. doi:10.1001/
jamaoncol.2022.297
46. Basourakos SP, Gulati R, Vince RA, et al. Harmtobenefit of three
decades of prostate cancer screening in Black men. NEJM Evid.
2022;1(6):EVIDoa2200031. doi:10.1056/evidoa2200031
47. Awasthi S, Grass GD, TorresRoca J, et al. Genomic testing in
localized prostate cancer can identify subsets of AfricanAmericans
with aggressive disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. Published online
September 2, 2022. 10.1093/jnci/djac162
48. Giaquinto AN, Sung H, Miller KD, et al. Breast cancer statistics,
2022. CA Cancer J Clin. Published online October 3, 2022. 10.3322/
caac.21754
49. Pfeiffer RM, WebbVargas Y, Wheeler W, Gail MH. Proportion of U.
S. trends in breast cancer incidence attributable to longterm
changes in risk factor distributions. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.
2018;27(10):12141222. doi:10.1158/10559965.epi180098
50. Sung H, Siegel RL, Rosenberg PS, Jemal A. Emerging cancer trends
among young adults in the USA: analysis of a populationbased
cancer registry. Lancet Public Health. 2019;4(3):e137e147. doi:10.
1016/s24682667(18)302676
51. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force; BibbinsDomingo K, Gross-
man DC, et al. Screening for thyroid cancer: U.S. Preventive Ser-
vices Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2017;317(18):
18821887.
52. Haugen BR. 2015 American Thyroid Association management
guidelines for adult patients with thyroid nodules and differenti-
ated thyroid cancer: what is new and what has changed? Cancer.
2017;123(3):372381. doi:10.1002/cncr.30360
53. FuruyaKanamori L, Bell KJL, Clark J, Glasziou P, Doi SAR. Preva-
lence of differentiated thyroid cancer in autopsy studies over six
decades: a metaanalysis. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(30):36723679.
doi:10.1200/jco.2016.67.7419
54. LeClair K, Bell KJL, FuruyaKanamori L, Doi SA, Francis DO, Davies
L. Evaluation of gender inequity in thyroid cancer diagnosis: dif-
ferences by sex in US thyroid cancer incidence compared with a
metaanalysis of subclinical thyroid cancer rates at autopsy. JAMA
Intern Med. 2021;181(10):1351. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.
4804
55. Harris JE. Cigarette smoking among successive birth cohorts of
men and women in the United States during 190080. J Natl Cancer
Inst. 1983;71(3):473479.
56. Jemal A, Ma J, Rosenberg PS, Siegel R, Anderson WF. Increasing
lung cancer death rates among young women in southern and
midwestern states. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(22):27392744. doi:10.
1200/jco.2012.42.6098
57. Siegel RL, Torre LA, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global patterns and
trends in colorectal cancer incidence in young adults. Gut.
2019;68(12):21792185. doi:10.1136/gutjnl2019319511
58. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Colorectal cancer mortality rates in
adults aged 20 to 54 years in the United States, 19702014. JAMA.
2017;318(6):572574. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.7630
46
-
CANCER STATISTICS, 2023
59. Miller KD, Ortiz AP, Pinheiro PS, et al. Cancer statistics for the US
Hispanic/Latino population, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(6):
466487. doi:10.3322/caac.21695
60. Ortiz AP, OrtizOrtiz KJ, ColonLopez V, et al. Incidence of cervical
cancer in Puerto Rico, 20012017. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(3):456458.
doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7488
61. de Martel C, Plummer M, Vignat J, Franceschi S. Worldwide burden
of cancer attributable to HPV by site, country and HPV type. Int J
Cancer. 2017;141(4):664670. doi:10.1002/ijc.30716
62. Markowitz LE, Dunne EF, Saraiya M, et al. Quadrivalent human
papillomavirus vaccine: recommendations of the Advisory Com-
mittee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep.
2007;56(RR2):124.
63. Mix JM, Van Dyne EA, Saraiya M, Hallowell BD, Thomas CC.
Assessing impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer incidence
among women aged 1529 years in the United States, 19992017:
an ecologic study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2021;30(1):
3037. doi:10.1158/10559965.epi200846
64. Rosenblum HG, Lewis RM, Gargano JW, Querec TD, Unger ER,
Markowitz LE. Human papillomavirus vaccine impact and effec-
tiveness through 12 years after vaccine introduction in the United
States, 2003 to 2018. Ann Intern Med. 2022;175(7):918926.
doi:10.7326/m213798
65. Lei J, Ploner A, Elfstrom KM, et al. HPV vaccination and the risk of
invasive cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(14):13401348.
doi:10.1056/nejmoa1917338
66. Falcaro M, Castanon A, Ndlela B, et al. The effects of the national
HPV vaccination programme in England, UK, on cervical cancer and
grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia incidence: a register
based observational study. Lancet. 2021;398(10316):20842092.
doi:10.1016/s01406736(21)021784
67. Kreimer AR, Sampson JN, Porras C, et al. Evaluation of durability of
a single dose of the bivalent HPV vaccine: the CVT trial. J Natl
Cancer Inst. 2020;112(10):10381046. doi:10.1093/jnci/djaa011
68. Rodriguez AM, Zeybek B, Vaughn M, et al. Comparison of the long
term impact and clinical outcomes of fewer doses and standard
doses of human papillomavirus vaccine in the United States: a
database study. Cancer. 2020;126(8):16561667. doi:10.1002/cncr.
32700
69. Man I, Georges D, de Carvalho TM, et al. Evidencebased impact
projections of singledose human papillomavirus vaccination in
India: a modelling study. Lancet Oncol. 2022. doi:10.1016/S1470
2045(22)005435
70. World Health Organization. Meeting of the Strategic Advisory
Group of Experts on Immunization, April 2022: conclusions and
recommendations. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2022;97(24):261276.
71. Pingali C, Yankey D, ElamEvans LD, et al. National vaccination
coverage among adolescents aged 1317 years—National Immuni-
zation SurveyTeen, United States, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly
Rep. 2022;71(35):11011108. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7135a1
72. Croswell JM, Ransohoff DF, Kramer BS. Principles of cancer
screening: lessons from history and study design issues. Semin
Oncol. 2010;37(3):202215. doi:10.1053/j.seminoncol.2010.05.
006
73. O'Grady TJ, Gates MA, Boscoe FP. Thyroid cancer incidence
attributable to overdiagnosis in the United States 19812011. Int J
Cancer. 2015;137(11):26642673. doi:10.1002/ijc.29634
74. Sasaki K, Strom SS, O'Brien S, et al. Relative survival in patients
with chronicphase chronic myeloid leukaemia in the tyrosineki-
nase inhibitor era: analysis of patient data from six prospective
clinical trials. Lancet Haematol. 2015;2(5):e186e193. doi:10.1016/
s23523026(15)000484
75. Carlino MS, Larkin J, Long GV. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in
melanoma. Lancet. 2021;398(10304):10021014. doi:10.1016/
s01406736(21)01206x
76. BerkKrauss J, Stein JA, Weber J, Polsky D, Geller AC. New sys-
tematic therapies and trends in cutaneous melanoma deaths
among US Whites, 19862016. Am J Public Health. 2020;110(5):
731733. doi:10.2105/ajph.2020.305567
77. Gallicchio L, Devasia TP, Tonorezos E, Mollica MA, Mariotto A.
Estimation of the numbers of individuals living with metastatic
cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. Published online
August 22, 2022. doi:10.1093/jnci/djac158
78. Gross ND, Miller DM, Khushalani NI, et al. Neoadjuvant cemi-
plimab for stage II to IV cutaneous squamouscell carcinoma. N
Engl J Med. Published online September 12, 2022. doi:10.1056/
NEJMoa2209831
79. Forde PM, Spicer J, Lu S, et al. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus
chemotherapy in resectable lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;
386(21):19731985. doi:10.1056/nejmoa2202170
80. Howlader N, Forjaz G, Mooradian MJ, et al. The effect of advances
in lungcancer treatment on population mortality. N Engl J Med.
2020;383(7):640649. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1916623
81. Muthusamy B, Patil PD, Pennell NA. Perioperative systemic ther-
apy for resectable nonsmall cell lung cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer
Netw. 2022;20(8):953961. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2022.7021
82. Potter AL, Rosenstein AL, Kiang MV, et al. Association of computed
tomography screening with lung cancer stage shift and survival in
the United States: quasiexperimental study. BMJ. 2022;376:
e069008. doi:10.1136/bmj2021069008
83. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA
Cancer J Clin. 2022;72(1):733. doi:10.3322/caac.21708
84. RamiPorta R, Call S, Dooms C, et al. Lung cancer staging: a concise
update. Eur Respir J. 2018;51(5):1800190. doi:10.1183/13993003.
001902018
85. Jones GS, Baldwin DR. Recent advances in the management of
lung cancer. Clin Med. 2018;18(suppl 2):s41s46. doi:10.7861/
clinmedicine.182s41
86. Finn RS, Qin S, Ikeda M, et al. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab
in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2020;
382(20):18941905. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1915745
87. McAlpine JN, Temkin SM, Mackay HJ. Endometrial cancer: not
your grandmother's cancer. Cancer. 2016;122(18):27872798.
doi:10.1002/cncr.30094
88. Fiorica JV. The role of topotecan in the treatment of advanced
cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;90(3 pt 2):S16S21. doi:10.
1016/s00908258(03)004657
89. Wan YL, BeverleyStevenson R, Carlisle D, et al. Working together
to shape the endometrial cancer research agenda: the top ten
unanswered research questions. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;143(2):
287293. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.08.333
90. National Cancer Institute. NCI Funded Research Portfolio: FY 2018
Research Funding by Cancer Type. Accessed October 14, 2022.
https://fundedresearch.cancer.gov/nciportfolio/search/funded?fy=
PUB2018%26type=site
91. Clarke MA, Devesa SS, Hammer A, Wentzensen N. Racial and
ethnic differences in hysterectomycorrected uterine corpus can-
cer mortality by stage and histologic subtype. JAMA Oncol.
2022;8(6):895903. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.0009
92. Jamieson A, Huvila J, Thompson EF, et al. Variation in practice in
endometrial cancer and potential for improved care and equity
through molecular classification. Gynecol Oncol. 2022;165(2):
201214. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.02.001
93. Nero C, Pasciuto T, Cappuccio S, et al. Further refining 2020
ESGO/ESTRO/ESP molecular risk classes in patients with early
stage endometrial cancer: a propensity scorematched analysis.
Cancer. 2022;128(15):28982907. doi:10.1002/cncr.34331
94. Hu K, Wang W, Liu X, Meng Q, Zhang F. Comparison of treatment
outcomes between squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma
of cervix after definitive radiotherapy or concurrent
SIEGEL ET AL.
-
47
chemoradiotherapy. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13(1):249. doi:10.1186/
s1301401811975
95. Sherman ME, Wang SS, Carreon J, Devesa SS. Mortality trends for
cervical squamous and adenocarcinoma in the United States.
Relation to incidence and survival. Cancer. 2005;103(6):12581264.
doi:10.1002/cncr.20877
96. Chow WH, Shuch B, Linehan WM, Devesa SS. Racial disparity in
renal cell carcinoma patient survival according to demographic and
clinical characteristics. Cancer. 2013;119(2):388394. doi:10.1002/
cncr.27690
97. Jemal A, Ward EM, Johnson CJ, et al. Annual report to the nation
on the status of cancer, 19752014, featuring survival. J Natl
Cancer Inst. 2017;109(9):djx030. doi:10.1093/jnci/djx030
98. Welch HG, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Are increasing 5year sur-
vival rates evidence of success against cancer? JAMA. 2000;
283(22):29752978. doi:10.1001/jama.283.22.2975
99. Negoita S, Feuer EJ, Mariotto A, et al. Annual report to the nation on
the status of cancer, part II: recent changes in prostate cancer trends
and disease characteristics. Cancer. 2018;124(13):28012814. doi:
10.1002/cncr.31549
100. Jemal A, Culp MB, Ma J, Islami F, Fedewa SA. Prostate cancer
incidence 5 years after U.S. Preventive Services Task Force rec-
ommendations against screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113
(1):6471. doi:10.1093/jnci/djaa068
101. Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, et al. Quantifying the role of PSA
screening in the US prostate cancer mortality decline. Cancer
Causes Control. 2008;19(2):175181. doi:10.1007/s10552007
90838
102. Tsodikov A, Gulati R, Heijnsdijk EAM, et al. Reconciling the effects
of screening on prostate cancer mortality in the ERSPC and PLCO
trials. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(7):449455.
103. Masters RK, Aron LY, Woolf SH. Changes in life expectancy be-
tween 2019 and 2021 in the United States and 21 peer countries.
medRxiv. Preprint posted online June 1, 2022. doi:10.1101/2022.
04.05.22273393
104. Nelson DE, Mowery P, Asman K, et al. Longterm trends in
adolescent and young adult smoking in the United States: meta-
patterns and implications. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(5):905915.
doi:10.2105/ajph.2007.115931
105. Islami F, Guerra CE, Minihan A, et al. American Cancer Society's
report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States, 2021.
CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72(2):112143. doi:10.3322/caac.21703
106. Gupta A, Omeogu CH, Islam JY, Joshi AR, Akinyemiju TF. Associa-
tion of arealevel socioeconomic status and nonsmall cell lung
cancer stage by race/ethnicity and health carelevel factors: analysis
of the National Cancer Database. Cancer. 2022;128(16):30993108.
doi:10.1002/cncr.34327
107. Wang X, Brown DS, Cao Y, Ekenga CC, Guo S, Johnson KJ. The
impact of health insurance coverage on racial/ethnic disparities in
US childhood and adolescent cancer stage at diagnosis. Cancer.
2022;128(17):31963203. doi:10.1002/cncr.34368
108. Ward E, Jemal A, Cokkinides V, et al. Cancer disparities by race/-
ethnicity and socioeconomic status. CA Cancer J Clin. 2004;54(2):
7893. doi:10.3322/canjclin.54.2.78
109. Bach PB, Schrag D, Brawley OW, Galaznik A, Yakren S, Begg CB.
Survival of Blacks and Whites after a cancer diagnosis. JAMA.
2002;287(16):21062113. doi:10.1001/jama.287.16.2106
110. Bailey ZD, Krieger N, Agenor M, Graves J, Linos N, Bassett MT.
Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: evidence and
interventions. Lancet. 2017;389(10077):14531463. doi:10.1016/
s01406736(17)30569x
111. Commission on Social Determinants of Health, World Health Or-
ganization. Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity Through
Action on the Social Determinants of Health. World Health Organi-
zation; 2008.
112. Braveman P, Gottlieb L. The social determinants of health: it's
time to consider the causes of the causes. Public Health Rep.
2014;129(suppl 2):1931. doi:10.1177/00333549141291s206
113. Pinheiro LC, Reshetnyak E, Akinyemiju T, Phillips E, Safford
MM. Social determinants of health and cancer mortality in the
Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS)
cohort study. Cancer. 2021;128(1):122130. doi:10.1002/cncr.
33894
114. Lopez L 3rd, Hart LH 3rd, Katz MH. Racial and ethnic health dis-
parities related to COVID19. JAMA. 2021;325(8):719720. doi:10.
1001/jama.2020.26443
115. Shiels MS, Haque AT, Haozous EA, et al. Racial and ethnic dispar-
ities in excess deaths during the COVID19 pandemic, March to
December 2020. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174(12):16931699. doi:10.
7326/m212134
116. Richman I, TessierSherman B, Galusha D, Oladele CR, Wang K.
Breast cancer screening during the COVID19 pandemic: moving
from disparities to health equity. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022. doi:10.
1093/jnci/djac172
117. American Cancer Society. Cancer Prevention & Early Detection
Facts & Figures 2022. American Cancer Society; 2022.
118. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for
Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Human papillomavirus
vaccination coverage among adolescents (1317 years). Accessed
September 21, 2021. https://data.cdc.gov/TeenVaccinations/
VaccinationCoverageamongAdolescents1317Years/ee48w5t
6/data
119. Nguyen BT, Han X, Jemal A, Drope J. Diet quality, risk factors and
access to care among lowincome uninsured American adults in
states expanding Medicaid vs. states not expanding under the
affordable care act. Prev Med. 2016;91:169171. doi:10.1016/j.
ypmed.2016.08.015
120. Sommers BD, Gawande AA, Baicker K. Health insurance coverage
and health—what the recent evidence tells us. N Engl J Med.
2017;377(6):586593. doi:10.1056/nejmsb1706645
121. Kantarjian HM, Keating MJ, Freireich EJ. Toward the potential cure
of leukemias in the next decade. Cancer. 2018;124(22):43014313.
doi:10.1002/cncr.31669
122. Schafer ES, Hunger SP. Optimal therapy for acute lymphoblastic
leukemia in adolescents and young adults. Nat Rev Clin Oncol.
2011;8(7):417424. doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.77
123. Torre LA, Sauer AM, Chen MS Jr, KagawaSinger M, Jemal A,
Siegel RL. Cancer statistics for Asian Americans, Native Hawai-
ians, and Pacific Islanders, 2016: converging incidence in males
and females. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(3):182202. doi:10.3322/
caac.21335
How to cite this article: Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal
A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023;73(1):1748.
doi:10.3322/caac.21763
48
-
CANCER STATISTICS, 2023
... Pancreatic tumors are one of the most lethal forms of cancer [1]. They represent about 3% of all cancers in the United States, but account for approximately 7% of all cancer-related deaths. ...
... For unresectable or metastatic cases, chemotherapy (e.g., FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine) and radiation therapy are the mainstays of treatment. However, the 5-year survival rate remains dismal, at less than 10% [1], mainly due to late diagnosis, the aggressive characteristics of the disease, and the poor therapeutic options once the disease has disseminated. Because of this, novel effective therapeutic strategies are needed. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Pancreatic cancer is one of the most difficult to treat neoplasias. Because of that, the prognosis of the disease is dismal, and identification of novel therapeutic approaches is needed. This study investigates the role of transforming growth factor-alpha (TGFα) in pancreatic cancer and its potential as a therapeutic target. Methods Using in silico platforms, it was confirmed that TGFA , the gene encoding TGFα, is significantly overexpressed in pancreatic adenocarcinomas relative to normal pancreatic tissues. In patient-derived xenografts as well as in pancreatic cancer cell lines, multiple molecular forms of TGFα were identified, including the transmembrane TGFα precursor (proTGFα) and the soluble 6 kDa mature form. Functional assays using RNA interference and CRISPR/Cas9 demonstrated that TGFA knockdown significantly impaired cell proliferation, reinforcing the critical role of TGFα in driving tumor growth. The therapeutic potential of targeting TGFα was evaluated through the development of two monoclonal antibodies (5F1 and 16B10) specific for TGFα. Results These antibodies effectively bound to proTGFα-expressing cells, with minimal off-target effects in TGFA -knockout cell lines. When conjugated to cytotoxic agents such as MMAF, the resulting antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) exhibited potent antiproliferative activity, significantly reducing the viability of TGFα-expressing pancreatic cancer cells. Mechanistic studies revealed that MMAF-loaded ADCs induced G2/M cell cycle arrest, with markers of mitotic disruption evident in treated cells. In vivo, the TGFα-targeting ADCs elicited substantial tumor regression in murine models of pancreatic cancer, whereas the unconjugated antibodies merely stabilized tumor growth. Conclusions These findings highlight TGFα as a promising therapeutic target in pancreatic cancer, supporting further preclinical and clinical development of TGFα-directed ADCs.
... Research has shown that NAFLD patients are more prone to develop hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [8,9]. The burden of HCC is the third leading cause of cancer-related death, and one of the major causes is due to MAFLD [10][11][12]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Dysregulation of hepatic metabolism is a crucial factor in the development of fatty liver disease and significantly increases the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aims to identify the genes implicated in the prognosis of HCC among individuals suffering from metabolic fatty liver disease. We analysed protein–protein interaction (PPI) networks and constructed a weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) using high-throughput gene expression profiling datasets. Our meta-analysis uncovered 442 differentially expressed genes (DEGs), comprising 30 upregulated and 412 downregulated genes. We constructed a PPI network from the DEGs and identified significant hub genes based on their degree centrality scores. Additionally, WGCNA highlighted impactful genes and tightly correlated modules, leading to the creation of a gene interaction network specific to metabolism-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD). Pathway analysis revealed the candidate regulatory gene interleukin-7 receptor (IL7R), which is involved in cytokine-mediated signalling across both interaction networks. Pro-inflammatory cytokines interact with IL7R, activating the JAK/STAT pathway that influences gene expression throughout progression to HCC. IL7R activates STAT3, affecting the behaviour of activated hepatic stellate cells following initial liver damage. Furthermore, the expression of the IL7R gene was validated as a predictor of HCC malignancy through a logistic regression model, resulting in an accuracy of 92%. Findings suggest that IL7R could be the target gene associated with metabolism-linked HCC. It could significantly impact the management of metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) and may help enhance HCC diagnostics to improve patient outcomes.
... Cancer remains one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide, and its heterogeneity necessitates ongoing exploration of novel biomarkers and therapeutic targets [1,2]. Among these, metabolic reprogramming has emerged as a hallmark of cancer, with particular focus on metabolic enzymes and transporters that facilitate energy production and modulate the tumor microenvironment (TME) [3][4][5]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Bladder cancer (BCa), a prevalent malignancy of the urinary tract, is associated with high recurrence and mortality rates. SLC16A7, a member of the solute carrier family 16 (SLC16), encodes monocarboxylate transporters that are involved in the proton-coupled transport of metabolites, including lactate, pyruvate, and ketone bodies, across cell membranes. Evidence suggests that SLC16A7 exhibits variable expression in cancers and may influence tumor development, progression, and immune regulation. This study examined the role of SLC16A7 in cancer prognosis, progression, and immune regulation, focusing on BCa. Methods A comprehensive analysis was conducted to evaluate the clinical and immunological relevance of SLC16A7 across multiple cancer types using data from 33 tumor datasets from ‘The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). ’ Associations between SLC16A7 expression and clinicopathological features, prognostic indicators, tumor mutation burden (TMB), microsatellite instability (MSI), immune cell infiltration, and immune-related gene expression were systematically analyzed. Experimental validation was performed to assess SLC16A7 expression in the BCa tissues and cell lines. The prognostic value of SLC16A7 was confirmed using clinical follow-up data from an independent patient cohort. Functional studies included proliferation assays to investigate the effect of SLC16A7. CD8 + T cells were obtained from the peripheral blood of healthy donors and stimulated using CD3 and CD28 antibodies in combination with recombinant IL-2. To investigate the immunological role of SLC16A7, co-culture experiments were performed between BCa cells and activated CD8 + T cells. Additionally, CD8 + T cell chemotaxis assays and ELISA analyses were conducted to evaluate the immune responses mediated by SLC16A7. Results SLC16A7 expression was downregulated in 16 cancer types, including BCa, and upregulated in three cancer types. Its expression was significantly associated with tumor stage in four cancers and showed both positive and negative correlations with prognosis, depending on the cancer type. Genomic analyses revealed significant associations between SLC16A7 and TMB in 13 cancer types and MSI in 11 cancer types. Pathway enrichment analyses (Hallmark-GSEA and KEGG-GSEA) indicated strong associations between SLC16A7, immune responses, and tumor progression. Immune infiltration analysis showed a predominantly positive association between SLC16A7 expression and immune cell infiltration, except in low-grade gliomas (LGG). CIBERSORT analysis demonstrated that SLC16A7 expression correlated positively with resting memory CD4 T cells, eosinophils, monocytes, resting mast cells, and memory B cells and negatively with activated memory CD4 T cells, M1 macrophages, follicular helper T cells, M0 macrophages, and CD8 T cells. SLC16A7 expression was also significantly associated with the expression of immune-regulatory molecules. Experimental validation showed reduced SLC16A7 expression in BCa tissues and cell lines compared to that in their normal counterparts. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis indicated that higher SLC16A7 expression was correlated with better overall survival in patients with BCa. Functional assays revealed that SLC16A7 inhibited BCa cell progression and promoted the chemotaxis and tumor-killing ability of CD8 + T cells in the BCa tumor microenvironment (TME). Conclusions SLC16A7 exhibits tumor-suppressive properties, with downregulation in most cancers, and is associated with favorable prognosis and enhanced immune responses. SLC16A7 functions as a tumor suppressor in BCa and is associated with improved survival outcomes. These findings suggest that SLC16A7 is a potential biomarker for cancer diagnosis and prognosis.
... Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths, with a discouraging 5-year survival rate of only 12% in the United States [1]. It is treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAT) and/or radiotherapy; [2] however, it often remains refractory to these treatments [3]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background In the present study, we intended to discover predictive or prognostic factors of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We intended to investigate the differences between PDAC cases that are treated with upfront surgery (UFS) and surgery after neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy (NAT), and cases with good and poor responses to NAT, using digital spatial profiling (DSP) and immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis. Methods Forty-eight PDAC cases that were surgically resected with or without NAT were included. A tissue microarray was constructed for DSP and IHC. Pathological tumor regression to NAT was graded based on the College of American Pathologists (CAP) system. Results Between the UFS and NAT groups, there were no significant differentially expressed genes in all cell types. In the NAT group, MFAP4 and EGR3 were upregulated in CAP 2 in pan CK- and CD45-negative cells. Gene set enrichment analysis of CD45-positive cells showed that genes related to B or T cell-associated pathways were enriched in CAP 2, which correlated with the IHC; higher CD3-, CD4-, and CD8-positive cell densities in CAP 2. Multivariate analysis revealed age, high monocyte infiltration, and high CD68-positive cell infiltration as independent prognostic factors for overall survival. Conclusions Increased expression of MFAP4 and EGR3 as well as high CD3-, CD4-, and CD8-positive cell infiltration may be predictive markers of the NAT response in PDAC. Additionally, high monocyte infiltration and high CD68-positive cell infiltration could serve as prognostic markers for PDAC.
Article
Rapid advances in high-throughput sequencing technologies have led to the fast accumulation of high-dimensional data, which is harnessed for understanding the implications of various factors on human disease and health. While dimension reduction plays an essential role in high-dimensional regression and classification, existing methods often require the predictors to be continuous, making them unsuitable for discrete data, such as presence-absence records of species in community ecology and sequencing reads in single-cell studies. To identify and estimate sufficient reductions in regressions with discrete predictors, we introduce probabilistic exponential family inverse regression (PrEFIR), assuming that, given the response and a set of latent factors, the predictors follow one-parameter exponential families. We show that the low-dimensional reductions result not only from the response variable but also from the latent factors. We further extend the latent factor modeling framework to the double exponential family by including an additional parameter to account for the dispersion. This versatile framework encompasses regressions with all categorical or a mixture of categorical and continuous predictors. We propose the method of maximum hierarchical likelihood for estimation, and develop a highly parallelizable algorithm for its computation. The effectiveness of PrEFIR is demonstrated through simulation studies and real data examples.
Article
Objectives Inflammation is intricately linked to the emergence and advancement of most cancers, playing a pivotal role in their malignant transformation. Observational evidence revealed the role of cytokines in pancreatic cancer (PC) carcinogenesis. However, observational studies may be limited by small sample sizes, confounding factors, and reverse causality when establishing a correlation between inflammatory cytokines and PC risk. Design Conducting a two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis, we investigated the potential relationship between inflammatory cytokines in circulation and pancreatic cancer. Data from the most extensive genome-wide association studies (GWAS) on cytokines were utilized, involving 31 112 individuals of European descent. Additionally, the PC GWAS from the Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU) analysis of Finnish Biobank data was included, consisting of 605 PC cases and 218 187 controls of European ancestry. Results Around 47 cytokines were systematically screened, which revealed that circulating levels of IL-1ra (OR: 0.63; 95% CIs: 0.46–0.87; P-value: 4.9 × 10–4), IP-10 (OR: 0.33; 95% CIs: 0.18–0.59; P-value: 1.8 × 10–4) and macrophage inflammatory protein (MIP)-1a (OR: 1.37; 95% CIs: 1.08–1.75; P-value: 1 × 10–2) predicted by genetic criteria were prominently linked to an elevated risk of overall PC. Conclusion Further evidence indicates that certain inflammatory cytokines play critical roles in PC carcinogenesis and that specific inflammatory cytokines can be targeted to prevent PC. Nevertheless, additional research is necessary to assess the potential of these cytokines in detecting PC at an early stage.
Article
Hemicorporectomy, or translumbar amputation, is a radical surgical procedure in which the lower half of the body is removed. To date, 79 cases have been reported in the literature. We conducted a systematic review of the literature of articles published in peer-reviewed journals after 1990 on independent cases of hemicorporectomies. Individual case reports published before 1990 were excluded; however, a review paper from 1990 was included as a retrospective cohort and a source of comparison. Twenty-seven studies with an average follow-up period of 5.2 years reported on 40 patients who underwent hemicorporectomy from 1990 to 2021. Average age at surgery was 36.8 years, and 82.5% were male. The most common indications for the procedure were osteomyelitis of the pelvis (35%), squamous cell carcinoma (22.5%), and trauma (12.5%). Trauma had the lowest mortality rate (20%), while osteomyelitis had the highest (39%). This systematic review of 40 hemicorporectomy cases between 1990 and 2022 shows promising results, with many patients achieving significant recovery milestones, such as mobility and employment. These findings suggest that, despite its radical nature, the procedure can be a safe option for critical patients with no other feasible alternatives.
Article
Background Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is the predominant malignancy in pediatric patients. As a crucial constituent of ALL chemotherapy, l -asparaginase is recognized as an integral element of treatment with a threshold concentration of 0.1 IU/mL used in treatment protocols. This study presents a novel liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry method for evaluating plasma l -asparaginase activity in pediatric patients with ALL undergoing pegaspargase therapy. Methods Initially, an enzyme incubation was conducted using 20 μL of plasma and 100 μL of l -asparagine (0.1 mol/L) at 37°C for 15 minutes. The reaction was stopped by adding sulfosalicylic acid and methanol. After the addition of isotope internal standard l -aspartic ¹³ C 4 acid, subsequent centrifugation, and dilution, the plasma samples underwent analysis by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry on a hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography analytical column. A flow rate of 0.3 mL/min was used during isocratic elution using a mobile phase consisting of methanol–water (95:5, vol/vol) with 0.2% formic acid within a 5-minute run. Results The calibration curves exhibited excellent linearity ranging from 0.1 to 15 IU/mL, with determination coefficients ( r ² ) exceeding 0.99. The precision and accuracy ranged from 1% to 7% and from 93% to 110%, respectively. The relative recovery fell within the range of 98%–100%, and the internal standard–normalized matrix effect ranged from 95% to 101%. The stability was satisfactory across various conditions. Conclusions This method was fully validated and successfully applied to quantify l -asparaginase activity in plasma samples of 15 children with ALL, enabling the monitoring of l -asparaginase activity with mass spectrometry.
Article
Full-text available
This article is the American Cancer Society’s update on female breast cancer statistics in the United States, including population‐based data on incidence, mortality, survival, and mammography screening. Breast cancer incidence rates have risen in most of the past four decades; during the most recent data years (2010–2019), the rate increased by 0.5% annually, largely driven by localized‐stage and hormone receptor‐positive disease. In contrast, breast cancer mortality rates have declined steadily since their peak in 1989, albeit at a slower pace in recent years (1.3% annually from 2011 to 2020) than in the previous decade (1.9% annually from 2002 to 2011). In total, the death rate dropped by 43% during 1989–2020, translating to 460,000 fewer breast cancer deaths during that time. The death rate declined similarly for women of all racial/ethnic groups except American Indians/Alaska Natives, among whom the rates were stable. However, despite a lower incidence rate in Black versus White women (127.8 vs. 133.7 per 100,000), the racial disparity in breast cancer mortality remained unwavering, with the death rate 40% higher in Black women overall (27.6 vs. 19.7 deaths per 100,000 in 2016–2020) and two‐fold higher among adult women younger than 50 years (12.1 vs. 6.5 deaths per 100,000). Black women have the lowest 5‐year relative survival of any racial/ethnic group for every molecular subtype and stage of disease (except stage I), with the largest Black–White gaps in absolute terms for hormone receptor‐positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‐negative disease (88% vs. 96%), hormone receptor‐negative/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‐positive disease (78% vs. 86%), and stage III disease (64% vs. 77%). Progress against breast cancer mortality could be accelerated by mitigating racial disparities through increased access to high‐quality screening and treatment via nationwide Medicaid expansion and partnerships between community stakeholders, advocacy organizations, and health systems.
Article
Full-text available
Background Despite the high burden of cervical cancer, access to preventive measures remains low in India. A single-dose immunisation schedule could facilitate the scale-up of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, contributing to global elimination of cervical cancer. We projected the effect of single-dose quadrivalent HPV vaccination in India in comparison with no vaccination or to a two-dose schedule. Methods In this modelling study, we adapted an HPV transmission model (EpiMetHeos) to Indian data on sexual behaviour (from the Demographic and Health Survey and the Indian National AIDS Control Organisation), HPV prevalence data (from two local surveys, from the states of Tamil Nadu and West Bengal), and cervical cancer incidence data (from Cancer Incidence in Five Continents for the period 2008–12 [volume XI], and the Indian National Centre for Disease Informatics and Research for the period 2012–16). Using the model, we projected the nationwide and state-specific effect of HPV vaccination on HPV prevalence and cervical cancer incidence, and lifetime risk of cervical cancer, for 100 years after the introduction of vaccination or in the first 50 vaccinated birth cohorts. Projections were derived under a two-dose vaccination scenario assuming life-long protection and under a single-dose vaccination scenario with protection duration assumptions derived from International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) India vaccine trial data, in combination with different vaccination coverages and catch-up vaccination age ranges. We used two thresholds to define cervical cancer elimination: an age-standardised incidence rate of less than 4 cases per 100 000 woman-years, and standardised lifetime risk of less than 250 cases per 100 000 women born. Findings Assuming vaccination in girls aged 10 years, with 90% coverage, and life-long protection by two-dose or single-dose schedule, HPV vaccination could reduce the prevalence of HPV16 and HPV18 infection by 97% (80% UI 96–99) in 50 years, and the lifetime risk of cervical cancer by 71–78% from 1067 cases per 100 000 women born under a no vaccination scenario to 311 (80% UI 284–339) cases per 100 000 women born in the short term and 233 (219–252) cases per 100 000 women born in the long term in vaccinated cohorts. Under this scenario, we projected that the age-standardised incidence rate threshold for elimination could be met across India (range across Indian states: 1·6 cases [80% UI 1·5–1·7] to 4·0 cases [3·8–4·4] per 100 000 woman-years), while the complementary threshold based on standardised lifetime risk was attainable in 17 (68%) of 25 states, but not nationwide (range across Indian states: 207 cases [80% UI 194–223] to 477 cases [447–514] per 100 000 women born). Under the considered assumptions of waning vaccine protection, single-dose vaccination was projected to have a 21–100% higher per-dose efficiency than two-dose vaccination. Single-dose vaccination with catch-up for girls and women aged 11–20 years was more impactful than two-dose vaccination without catch-up, with reduction of 39–65% versus 38% in lifetime risk of cervical cancer across the ten catch-up birth cohorts and the first ten routine vaccination birth cohorts. Interpretation Our evidence-based projections suggest that scaling up cervical cancer prevention through single-dose HPV vaccination could substantially reduce cervical cancer burden in India. Funding The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Article
Full-text available
Background Cancer incidence is higher in men than in women at most shared anatomic sites for currently unknown reasons. The authors quantified the extent to which behaviors (smoking and alcohol use), anthropometrics (body mass index and height), lifestyles (physical activity, diet, medications), and medical history collectively explain the male predominance of risk at 21 shared cancer sites. Methods Prospective cohort analyses (n = 171,274 male and n = 122,826 female participants; age range, 50–71 years) in the National Institutes of Health‐AARP Diet and Health Study (1995–2011). Cancer‐specific Cox regression models were used to estimate male‐to‐female hazard ratios (HRs). The degree to which risk factors explained the observed male–female risk disparity was quantified using the Peters–Belson method. Results There were 26,693 incident cancers (17,951 in men and 8742 in women). Incidence was significantly lower in men than in women only for thyroid and gallbladder cancers. At most other anatomic sites, the risks were higher in men than in women (adjusted HR range, 1.3–10.8), with the strongest increases for bladder cancer (HR, 3.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.93–3.79), gastric cardia cancer (HR, 3.49; 95% CI, 2.26–5.37), larynx cancer (HR, 3.53; 95% CI, 2.46–5.06), and esophageal adenocarcinoma (HR, 10.80; 95% CI, 7.33–15.90). Risk factors explained a statistically significant (nonzero) proportion of the observed male excess for esophageal adenocarcinoma and cancers of liver, other biliary tract, bladder, skin, colon, rectum, and lung. However, only a modest proportion of the male excess was explained by risk factors (ranging from 50% for lung cancer to 11% for esophageal adenocarcinoma). Conclusions Men have a higher risk of cancer than women at most shared anatomic sites. Such male predominance is largely unexplained by risk factors, underscoring a role for sex‐related biologic factors.
Article
Background: In a pilot study involving patients with cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma, a high percentage of patients had a pathological complete response with the use of two doses of neoadjuvant cemiplimab before surgery. Data from a phase 2 study are needed to confirm these findings. Methods: We conducted a phase 2, confirmatory, multicenter, nonrandomized study to evaluate cemiplimab as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with resectable stage II, III, or IV (M0) cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma. Patients received cemiplimab, administered at a dose of 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to four doses, before undergoing surgery with curative intent. The primary end point was a pathological complete response (the absence of viable tumor cells in the surgical specimen) on independent review at a central laboratory, with a null hypothesis that a pathological complete response would be observed in 25% of patients. Key secondary end points included a pathological major response (the presence of viable tumor cells that constitute ≤10% of the surgical specimen) on independent review, a pathological complete response and a pathological major response on investigator assessment at a local laboratory, an objective response on imaging, and adverse events. Results: A total of 79 patients were enrolled and received neoadjuvant cemiplimab. On independent review, a pathological complete response was observed in 40 patients (51%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 39 to 62) and a pathological major response in 10 patients (13%; 95% CI, 6 to 22). These results were consistent with the pathological responses determined on investigator assessment. An objective response on imaging was observed in 54 patients (68%; 95% CI, 57 to 78). Adverse events of any grade that occurred during the study period, regardless of whether they were attributed to the study treatment, were observed in 69 patients (87%). Grade 3 or higher adverse events that occurred during the study period were observed in 14 patients (18%). Conclusions: Neoadjuvant therapy with cemiplimab was associated with a pathological complete response in a high percentage of patients with resectable cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04154943.).
Article
The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented disruptions to routine health care in the United States. Screening mammography, a cornerstone of breast cancer control and prevention, was completely halted in the spring of 2020, and screening programs have continued to face challenges with subsequent COVID-19 waves. Although screening mammography rates dropped for all women during the pandemic, a number of studies have now clearly documented that reductions in screening have been greater for some populations than others. Specifically, minoritized women have been screened at lower rates than White women across studies, although the specific patterns of disparity vary depending on the populations and communities studied. We posit that these disparities are likely due to a variety of structural and contextual factors, including the differential impact of COVID-19 on communities. We also outline key considerations for closing gaps in screening mammography. First, practices, health systems, and communities must measure screening mammography use to identify whether gaps exist, and which populations are most affected. Second, we propose that strategies to close disparities in breast cancer screening must be multifaceted, targeting the health system/practice, but also structural factors at the policy level. Health disparities arise from a complex set of conditions, and multimodal solutions that address the complex, multifactorial conditions that lead to disparities may be more likely to succeed and are necessary for promoting health equity.
Article
Background Personalized genomic classifiers have transformed the management of prostate cancer (PCa) by identifying the most aggressive subsets of PCa. Nevertheless, the performance of genomic classifiers to risk-classify African American men is thus far lacking in a prospective setting. Methods This is a prospective study of the Decipher genomic classifier for NCCN low- and intermediate–risk PCa. Study eligible non-African American men were matched to African American men. Diagnostic biopsy specimens were processed to estimate Decipher scores. Samples accrued in NCT02723734 were interrogated to determine the genomic risk of reclassification (GrR) between conventional clinical risk classifiers and the Decipher score. Results The final analysis included a clinically balanced cohort of 226 patients with complete genomic information (113 African American men and 113 Non-African American men). A higher proportion of African American men with NCCN-classified low- (18.2%) and favorable intermediate-risk (37.8%) PCa had a higher Decipher score than Non-African American men. Self-identified African American men were twice more likely than Non-African American men to experience GrR (relative risk [RR] = 2.23; 95% CI, 1.02–4.90; P =.04). In an ancestry-determined race model, we consistently validated a higher risk of reclassification in African American men (RR = 5.26; 95% CI, 1.66–16.63; P =.004). Race-stratified analysis of GrR vs non-GrR tumors also revealed molecular differences in these tumor subtypes. Conclusions Integration of genomic classifiers with clinically-based risk classification can help identify the subset of African American men with localized PCa who harbor high genomic risk of early metastatic disease. It is vital to identify and appropriately risk-stratify the subset of African American men with aggressive disease who may benefit from more targeted interventions.
Article
Background The purpose of this study was to estimate the numbers of individuals living with metastatic cancer of the breast, prostate, lung, colorectal, bladder, and melanoma in the United States (US) using population-based data. Methods A back-calculation method was used to estimate the number of individuals living with metastatic cancer for each cancer type from US cancer mortality and survival statistics from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registries. The percentages of those living with metastatic cancer who advanced to metastatic disease from early-stage cancer versus who were diagnosed with metastatic cancer de novo were calculated. One- and five-year relative survival rates for de novo metastatic cancer were compared by year of diagnosis to assess time trends in survival. Results It is estimated that, in 2018, 623,405 individuals were living with metastatic cancer of the breast, prostate, lung, colorectal, bladder, and melanoma in the US. This number is expected to increase to 693,452 in 2025. In 2018, the percentage of survivors initially diagnosed with early-stage cancer who advanced to metastatic cancer ranged from 30% for lung cancer to 72% for bladder cancer. Conclusions This study demonstrates increasing numbers of individuals living with metastatic cancer of the six most common cancer types in the US. This information is critical for informing the allocation of research efforts and healthcare infrastructure needed to address the needs of these individuals.
Article
Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic is associated with decreased surgical procedure volumes, but existing studies have not investigated this association beyond the end of 2020, analyzed changes during the post-vaccine release period, or quantified these changes by patient acuity. Objective: To quantify changes in the volume of surgical procedures at a 1017-bed academic quaternary care center from January 6, 2019, to December 31, 2021. Design, setting, and participants: In this cohort study, 129 596 surgical procedure volumes were retrospectively analyzed during 4 periods: pre-COVID-19 (January 6, 2019, to January 4, 2020), COVID-19 peak (March 15, 2020, to May 2, 2020), post-COVID-19 peak (May 3, 2020, to January 2, 2021), and post-vaccine release (January 3, 2021, to December 31, 2021). Surgery volumes were analyzed by subspecialty and case class (elective, emergent, nonurgent, urgent). Statistical analysis was by autoregressive integrated moving average modeling. Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome of this study was the change in weekly surgical procedure volume across the 4 COVID-19 periods. Results: A total of 129 596 records of surgical procedures were reviewed. During the COVID-19 peak, overall weekly surgical procedure volumes (mean [SD] procedures per week, 406.00 [171.45]; 95% CI, 234.56-577.46) declined 44.6% from pre-COVID-19 levels (mean [SD] procedures per week, 732.37 [12.70]; 95% CI, 719.67-745.08; P < .001). This weekly volume decrease occurred across all surgical subspecialties. During the post-COVID peak period, overall weekly surgical volumes (mean [SD] procedures per week, 624.31 [142.45]; 95% CI, 481.85-766.76) recovered to only 85.8% of pre-COVID peak volumes (P < .001). This insufficient recovery was inconsistent across subspecialties and case classes. During the post-vaccine release period, although some subspecialties experienced recovery to pre-COVID-19 volumes, others continued to experience declines. Conclusions and relevance: This quaternary care institution effectively responded to the pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic by substantially decreasing surgical procedure volumes during the peak of the pandemic. However, overall surgical procedure volumes did not fully recover to pre-COVID-19 levels well into 2021, with inconsistent recovery rates across subspecialties and case classes. These declines suggest that delays in surgical procedures may result in potentially higher morbidity rates in the future. The differential recovery rates across subspecialties may inform institutional focus for future operational recovery.
Article
Despite remarkable treatment advancements in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), recurrence rates for those with resectable, early-stage disease remains high. Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies are 2 promising treatment modalities that may improve survival outcomes for patients with resected NSCLC when moved from the advanced stage to the curable setting. There are many clinical studies that have evaluated or are currently evaluating immunotherapy or targeted therapy in the perioperative setting, and recent trials such as CheckMate 816, ADAURA, and IMpower010 have led to new approvals and demonstrated the promise of this approach. This review discusses recent and ongoing neoadjuvant and adjuvant systemic therapy trials in NSCLC, and where the field may be going in the near future.