Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22519802›Full record

ReviewCritical reviews in toxicology2012

Cancer clusters in the USA: what do the last twenty years of state and federal investigations tell us?

Michael Goodman, Joshua S Naiman, Dina Goodman, Judy S LaKind

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical reviews in toxicology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Investigating reports of cancer clusters in Canada: a qualitative study of public health communication practices and investigation procedures.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2022
    Article
  7. Mapping the Way to Good Health: The Interdisciplinary Challenges of Geographers in Medical Research.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. A causal inference framework for cancer cluster investigations using publicly available data.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society) · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Protecting Children from Toxic Waste: Data-Usability Evaluation Can Deter Flawed Cleanup.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Inflammatory breast cancer clusters: A hypothesis.World journal of clinical oncology · 2014
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michael GoodmanDepartment of Epidemiology, Emory University School of Public Health, 1518 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, GA 30322, USA. mgoodm2@sph.emory.edu
Joshua S Naiman
Dina Goodman
Judy S LaKind

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer clusters garner considerable public and legislative attention, and there is often an expectation that cluster investigations in a community will reveal a causal link to an environmental exposure. At a 1989 national conference on disease clusters, it was reported that cluster studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s rarely, if ever, produced important findings. We seek to answer the question: Have cancer cluster investigations conducted by US health agencies in the past 20 years improved our understanding of cancer etiology, or informed cancer prevention and control?

methodsWe reviewed publicly available cancer cluster investigation reports since 1990, obtained from literature searches and by canvassing all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Investigations were categorized with respect to cancer type(s), hypothesized exposure, whether perceived clusters were confirmed (e.g. by elevated incidence), and conclusions about a link between cancer(s) of concern and hypothesized environmental exposure(s).

resultsWe reviewed 428 investigations evaluating 567 cancers of concern. An increase in incidence was confirmed for 72 (13%) cancer categories (including the category "all sites"). Three of those were linked (with variable degree of certainty) to hypothesized exposures, but only one investigation revealed a clear cause.

conclusionsIt is fair to state that extensive efforts to find causes of community cancer clusters have not been successful. There are fundamental shortcomings to our current methods of investigating community cancer clusters. We recommend a multidisciplinary national dialogue on creative, innovative approaches to understanding when and why cancer and other chronic diseases cluster in space and time.

Indexed as

Epidemiologic Research DesignCluster AnalysisEnvironmental ExposureHumansIncidenceNeoplasmsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID22519802
PMCPMC3408895

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.