The Socio-Economic Geography of Cancer

Being poor can affect the type of cancer you get.

A close up of cancer cells in the cervix.
National Journal
John Metcalfe, City Lab
See more stories about...
John Metcalfe, City Lab
May 27, 2014, 6:51 a.m.

We know that be­ing poor can make you sick. New re­search provides more evid­ence of this dis­mal link spe­cific­ally for can­cer: Liv­ing in poverty, it seems, is as­so­ci­ated with a high­er risk of con­tract­ing the kind of tu­mors that will kill you.

That’s the con­clu­sion of sci­ent­ists who’ve in­vest­ig­ated al­most 3 mil­lion ma­lig­nant tu­mors dia­gnosed in 16 states as well as the Los Angeles area ““ what they as­sert is the “most com­pre­hens­ive as­sess­ment of the re­la­tion­ship between SES (so­cioeco­nom­ic status) and can­cer in­cid­ence for the United States.” Over­all, they found no cor­rel­a­tion between how poor or rich you are and how likely you are to get can­cer. But drilling down in­to the census tracts with high­er poverty rates, they no­ticed a pre­val­ence of can­cers with low in­cid­ence and high mor­tal­ity rates. Wealth­i­er neigh­bor­hoods were marked by can­cers of high in­cid­ence, but low mor­tal­ity rates. As the lead re­search­er, Fran­cis Bos­coe at the New York State Can­cer Re­gistry, ex­plains: “When it comes to can­cer, the poor are more likely to die of the dis­ease while the af­flu­ent are more likely to die with the dis­ease.”

Out of 39 types of can­cer, 14 showed a pos­it­ive as­so­ci­ation with poverty, the re­search­ers said in their study (which was partly sup­por­ted by the Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol and Pre­ven­tion). Poor neigh­bor­hoods were more likely to see can­cers of the larynx, cer­vix, liv­er, and penis, as well as Ka­posi sar­coma. They were also tied to an up­tick in can­cers re­lated to to­bacco use and hu­man papil­lo­mavir­us. Rich­er areas, mean­while, suffered more from melan­oma and oth­er skin af­flic­tions, and can­cers of the thyroid and testes.

What’s to ac­count for these dif­fer­ences? Though race might play a part in the grand scheme of can­cer, it’s not ap­plic­able to what the re­search­ers meas­ured in this ex­per­i­ment. “The SES ef­fects we re­port are in­de­pend­ent of race, as race was ad­jus­ted for in the ana­lys­is,” they say. Rather, there could be be­ha­vi­or­al and eco­nom­ic things at play here, such as sub­stance use and ac­cess to med­ic­al care, ac­cord­ing to the study:

In gen­er­al, can­cer sites as­so­ci­ated with be­ha­vi­or­al risk factors such as to­bacco, al­co­hol and in­tra­ven­ous drug use, sexu­al trans­mis­sion, and poor diet tend to be as­so­ci­ated with high­er poverty. In con­trast, can­cer sites as­so­ci­ated with over­dia­gnos­is are as­so­ci­ated with lower poverty, not­ably skin, thyroid, and pro­state. Over­dia­gnos­is refers to the clin­ic­al de­tec­tion of asymp­to­mat­ic tu­mors, of­ten through ad­vanced med­ic­al tech­no­logy, that would oth­er­wise re­main un­detec­ted and un­coun­ted.

For a break­down of the can­cers that are dia­gnosed in poor and rich neigh­bor­hoods, have a look at this graph the re­search­ers made for four poverty levels us­ing data from the 2005-2009 Amer­ic­an Com­munity Sur­vey. The af­flic­tions that strike in high­er-poverty areas are loc­ated to­ward the right, and can­cers dis­covered more in rich­er ‘hoods are shown to­ward left:

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×