Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 15, Issue 7, pp 665–670

Lung Cancer Incidence Trends in Black and White Young Adults by Gender (United States)



Objective: This study analyzed temporal trends in lung cancer incidence rates for young adults, as an indicator of the recent and potential future impact of risk factor trends, by gender for blacks (African Americans) and whites in US geographic areas with high-quality cancer registries. The areas also varied in a tobacco control index (TCI) for 1992–1993.

Methods: Age-standardized incidence rates (ASIRs) were analyzed for lung cancer diagnosed at age 20–44 yearsfrom 1973–1976 to 1997–2000 for blacks and whites by gender, using data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. Recent trends (1989–1992 to 1997–2000) also were analyzed for each SEER area, which differed in the TCI.

Results: ASIRs declined for black and white men from 1973–1976 to 1997–2000, but not for black or white women after 1985–1988; the gender ratio (men/women) declined to reach 1.0 in whites and 1.4 in blacks. ASIRs decline from 1989–1992 to 1997–2000 for men in all but one of the SEER areas examined, but declines for women were largely limited to SEER areas in California, a state with a high (but not the highest) TCI. Black–white disparities in ASIRs persisted for all SEER areas combined and in each of the areas examined, and increased for women in the Detroit area.

Conclusions: Continued surveillance of ASIRs in young adults is needed, but these data emphasize the need for tobacco control programs to include targeting women and blacks.

African Americans blacks cancer surveillance lung cancer tobacco control 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Doll R (1991) Progress against cancer: an epidemiologic assessment.Am J Epidemiol 134: 675–688.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wilkenfeld J, Henningfield JH, Slade J, Burns D, Pinney J (2000) It's time for a change: cigarette smokers deserve meaningful information about their cigarettes. J Natl Cancer Inst 92: 90–92.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Cancer Institute. (2001) Risks Associated with Smoking Cigarettes with Low Machine-Measured Yields of Tar and Nicotine. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 13.Bethesda MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.National Cancer Institute. NIH Publication Ni. 02-5074.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jemal A, Cokkinides VE, Shafey O, Thun MJ (2003) Lung cancer trends in young adults: an early indicator of progress in tobacco control (United States). Cancer Causes Control 14: 579–585.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ries LAG, Eisner MP, Kosary CL et al. eds. (2003) SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2000. National Cancer Institute: Bethesda MD. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program Public-Use CD-ROM (1973-2000), National Cancer Institute, DCPC, Surveillance Program, Cancer Statistics Branch, released April 2003.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gilpin E, Stillman F, Hartman A, Gibson J, Pierce J (2000) Index for US state tobacco control initial outcomes. Am J Epidemiol 152: 727–738.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    US Department of Health and Human Services. The health benefits of smoking cessation. Washington DC: US Dept. of HHS, Public Health Service, CDC, 1990. U.S. DHHS Publication No. 90–8416.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jemal A, Travis WD, Tarone RE, Travis L, Devesa SS. (2003) Lung cancer rates convergence in young men and women in the United States: analysis by birth cohort and histologic type. Int J Cancer 105: 101–107.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2000) Declines in lung cancer rates-California, 1988-1997. MMWR 49: 1066–1069.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Siegel, M, Mowery PD, Pechacek TP et al. Trends in adult cigarette smoking in California compared with the rest of the United States, 1978-1994. Am J Public Health 90: 372–379.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    National Women's Law Center and Oregon Health & Science University. Making the Grade on Women's Health. Women and Smoking. A National and State-By-State Report Card, 2003. Card2003.pdf.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lawrence D, Graber JE, Mills SL, Meissner HI, Warnecke R (2003) Smoking cessation interventions in US racial/ethnic minority populations: an assessment of the literature. Prev Med 36: 204–216.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Flint AJ, Novotny TE (1998) Trends in black/white differences in current smoking among 18-to 24-year-olds in the United States, 1983–1993. Am J Prev Med 14: 19–24.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    King G, Polednak AP, Bendel RB, Vilsaint MC, Nahata SB.Disparities in smoking cessation between African Americans and whites: 1990-2000. Am J Public Health, in press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ahluwalia JS, Harris KJ, Catley D, Okuyemi KS, Mayo MS (2002) Sustained-release bupropion for smoking cessation in African Americans: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 288: 468–474.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR). (1995) Cancer Incidence in North America 1991-1995, Volume One: Incidence. Springfield IL, NAACCR.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR). (2003) Cancer in North American, 1996-2000. Volume Three: NAACCR Combined Cancer Incidence. Springfield IL, NAACCR.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stillman FA, Hartman AM, Graubard BJ, Gilpin EA, Murray DM, Gibson JT (2003) Evaluation of the American Stop Smoking Intervention Study (ASSIST): a report of outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst 95: 1681–1691.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Clegg LX, Feuer EJ, Midthune DN, Fay MP, Hankey BF (2002) Impact of reporting delay and reporting error on cancer incidence rates and trends. J Nat Cancer Inst 94: 1537–1545.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gilpin E, Emery MM, White MM, Pierce JP (2003) Changes in youth smoking participation in California in the 1990s. Cancer Causes Control 14: 985–993.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wingo PA, Jamison PM, Hiatt RA et al. (2003) Building the infrastructure for nationwide cancer Surveillance and control-a comparison between the National Program of cancer registries (NPCR) and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (United States). Cancer Causes Control 14: 175–193.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Connecticut Tumor RegistryConnecticut Department of Public HealthHartfordUSA

Personalised recommendations