Spatial cluster analysis of early stage breast cancer: a method for public health practice using cancer registry data
- 445 Downloads
Cancer registries are increasingly mapping residences of patients at time of diagnosis, however, an accepted protocol for spatial analysis of these data is lacking. We undertook a public health practice–research partnership to develop a strategy for detecting spatial clusters of early stage breast cancer using registry data.
Spatial patterns of early stage breast cancer throughout Michigan were analyzed comparing several scales of spatial support, and different clustering algorithms.
Analyses relying on point data identified spatial clusters not detected using data aggregated into census block groups, census tracts, or legislative districts. Further, using point data, Cuzick-Edwards’ nearest neighbor test identified clusters not detected by the SaTScan spatial scan statistic. Regression and simulation analyses lent credibility to these findings.
In these cluster analyses of early stage breast cancer in Michigan, spatial analyses of point data are more sensitive than analyses relying on data aggregated into polygons, and the Cuzick-Edwards’ test is more sensitive than the SaTScan spatial scan statistic, with acceptable Type I error. Cuzick-Edwards’ test also enables presentation of results in a manner easily communicated to public health practitioners. The approach outlined here should help cancer registries conduct and communicate results of geographic analyses.
KeywordsDemography Geographic Information Systems Breast Neoplasms Carcinoma Population Surveillance
- 2.Rushton G, Elmes G, McMaster R (2000) Considerations for improving geographic information system research in public health. URISA J 12:31–49Google Scholar
- 3.Alexander FE, Boyle P (eds) (1996) Methods for investigating localized clustering of disease. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, FranceGoogle Scholar
- 7.Meliker JR, Jacquez GM (2007) Space-time clustering of case-control data with residential histories: Insights into empirical induction periods, age-specific susceptibility, and calendar year-specific effects. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 21:625–634. doi:10.1007/s00477-007-0140-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.McElroy JA, Remington PL, Gangnon RE, Hariharan L, Andersen LD (2006) Identifying geographic disparities in the early detection of breast cancer using a geographic information system. Prev Chronic Dis 3:A10. http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2006/jan/05_0065.htm
- 17.Openshaw S, Taylor PJ (1981) The modifiable areal unit problem. In: Wrigley N, Bennett R (eds) Quantitative geography: a British view. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK, pp 60–69Google Scholar
- 18.Oden N, Jacquez G, Grimson R (1996) Realistic power simulations compare point- and area-based disease cluster tests. Stat Med 15:783–806. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960415)15:7/9<783::AID-SIM249>3.0.CO;2-O PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Fotheringham AS, Zhan FB (1996) A comparison of three exploratory methods for cluster detection in spatial point patterns. Geogr Anal 28:200–218Google Scholar
- 31.Cuzick J, Edwards R (1996) Clustering methods based on k nearest neighbour distributions. In: Alexander FE, Boyle P (eds) Methods for investigating localized clustering of disease. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, pp 53–67Google Scholar
- 32.Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program (1977) Summary Staging Guide for Cancer Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Reporting (SEER) Program. NIH Publication No. 86-2313. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD (Reprinted July 1986)Google Scholar
- 33.Young JL Jr, Roffers SD, Ries LAG, Fritz AG, Hurlbut AA (eds) (2001) SEER Summary Staging Manual—2000: codes and coding instructions. NIH Publication No. 01-4969, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MDGoogle Scholar
- 40.Boscoe FP, Miller BA (2004) Population estimation error and its impact on 1991–1999 cancer rates. Prof Geogr 56:516–529Google Scholar
- 41.Freedman D, Wachter K (1994) Heterogeneity and census adjustment for the intercensal base. Stat Sci 9:476–485Google Scholar
- 42.Kennedy S (1989) The small number problem and the accuracy of spatial databases. In: Goodchild M, Gopal S (eds) Accuracy of spatial databases. Taylor & Francis Ltd, London, UK, pp 187–196Google Scholar