Soil zinc content, groundwater usage, and prostate cancer incidence in South Carolina
- 111 Downloads
Prostate cancer (PrCA) incidence in South Carolina (SC) exceeds the national average, particularly among African Americans (AAs). Though data are limited, low environmental zinc exposures and down-regulation of prostatic zinc transporter proteins among AAs may explain, in part, the racial PrCA disparity.
Age-adjusted PrCA rates were calculated by census tract. Demographic data were obtained from the 1990 census. Hazardous waste site locations and soil zinc concentrations were obtained from existing federal and state databases. A geographic information system and Poisson regression were used to test the hypothesis that census tracts with reduced soil zinc concentrations, elevated groundwater use, or more agricultural or hazardous waste sites had elevated PrCA risks.
Census tracts with high groundwater use and low zinc concentrations had higher PrCA rate ratios (RR: 1.270; 95% confidence interval: 1.079, 1.505). This effect was not more apparent in areas populated primarily by AAs.
Increased PrCA rates were associated with reduced soil zinc concentrations and elevated groundwater use, although this observation is not likely to contribute to SC’s racial PrCA disparity. Statewide mapping and statistical modeling of relationships between environmental factors, demographics, and cancer incidence can be used to screen hypotheses focusing on novel PrCA risk factors.
KeywordsSouth Carolina Cancer statistics Race Geographic information systems Disparities
Geographic information system
South Carolina Central Cancer Registry
Department of Health and Environmental Control
United States Geological Survey
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Environmental Protection Agency
Parts per million
Inductively coupled plasma
Standardized incidence ratio
Markov chain Monte Carlo
Research Career Development Award, Department of Veteran’s Affairs VISN-7, Charleston, South Carolina to J. B. B.; National Cancer Institute, Community Networks Program (1 U01 CA114601-01 to J. R. H.).
- 4.United States Census Bureau American Community Survey (2006) Data profile highlights. South CarolinaGoogle Scholar
- 5.US Cancer Statistics Working Group (2007) United States Cancer Statistics: 2004 Incidence and Mortality. US DHHS/CDC/NIH-NCI, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
- 19.Franklin RB, Feng P, Milon B et al (2005) hZIP1 zinc uptake transporter down regulation and zinc depletion in prostate cancer. Mol Cancer 4(32):1–13Google Scholar
- 21.Rishi I, Baidouri H, Abbasi JA et al (2003) Prostate cancer in African-American men is associated with down-regulation of zinc transporters. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 11:252–260Google Scholar
- 22.[ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2005) Toxicological profile for zinc. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health ServiceGoogle Scholar
- 23.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1980) Exposure and risk assessment for zinc. In: EPA440481016 PB85212009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (WH-553), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 25.Apak R (2006) Adsorption of heavy metal ions on soil surfaces and similar substances: theoretical aspects. In: Encyclopedia of surface and colloid science. Taylor and Francis, pp 484–509Google Scholar
- 26.van der Cruijsen-Koeter IW, Vis AN, Roobol MJ et al (2005) Comparison of screen detected and clinically diagnosed prostate cancer in the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer, section Rotterdam. J Urol 174(1):121–125. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000162061.40533.0f PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1989) Risk assessment guidance for superfund, vol 1, Human health evaluation manual, Part A. Interim Final, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, DecemberGoogle Scholar
- 28.Canova JL (1999) Elements in South Carolina inferred background soil and stream sediment samples. S C Geol 41:11–25Google Scholar
- 29.Clemson University Extension: Agriculture Service Laboratory. http://www.clemson.edu/agsrvlb/index.htm
- 31.South Carolina Census Shape File. Obtained from: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental ControlGoogle Scholar
- 32.United States Geological Survey (USGS) Frequently Asked Questions concerning NURE HSSR DataGoogle Scholar
- 33.South Carolina Central Cancer Registry Incidence and Mortality (SCCCR) (2006) Office of Public Health Statistics and Information Services, Department of Health and Environmental ControlGoogle Scholar
- 36.SCBCB (2008) South Carolina Statistical Abstract 2008. South Carolina Budget and Control Board, Office of Research and Statistics, Columbia, SCGoogle Scholar
- 37.Rothman KJ, Greenland S (1989) Modern epidemiology, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- 39.Solymosi N, Reiczigel J, Harnos A et al (2006) A Multitask PostGIS based Vet GIS Framework. In: 1st OIE International Conference Use of GIS in Veterinary Activities, October 2006, Silvi Marina, Abruzzo, Italy. http://epi.univet.hu/portal/sn/kutatas/epidemiologia/terbeli-epidemiologia/betegseg-terkepezes/gisconference/oiegis.pdf
- 49.Reed JM, Stitch SR (1973) The uptake of testosterone and zinc in vitro by the human benign hypertrophic prostate. J Endocrinol 58(5):483–486Google Scholar
- 54.The Nutrition Data System for Research (NDS-R Version 4.03_31) developed by the Nutrition Coordinating Center (NCC), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MNGoogle Scholar
- 55.South Carolina Office of Research and Statistics (2005) South Carolina Rural Health Report. SC Budget and Control Board, Columbia, SCGoogle Scholar
- 57.Krieger N, Waterman P, Chen JT, Soobader MJ, Subramanian SV, Carson R (2002) Zip code caveat: bias due to spatiotemporal mismatches between zip codes and US census-defined geographic areas—the Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project. Am J Public Health 92(7):1100–1102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar