Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38857048›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Cancer Incidence Trends in Successive Social Generations in the US.

Philip S Rosenberg, Adalberto Miranda-Filho

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Neuromolecular medicine · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Increase of early-onset colorectal cancer: a cohort effect.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Urine C-reactive protein content and non-invasive molecular grading of renal cell carcinoma.Kidney cancer journal : official journal of the Kidney Cancer Association · 2025
    Article
  17. Intergenerational Enlargement of Human Organs as a Driver of Increased Cancer Risk?BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Philip S RosenbergDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Biostatistics Branch, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland.
Adalberto Miranda-FilhoDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Biostatistics Branch, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The incidence of some cancers in the US is increasing in younger age groups, but underlying trends in cancer patterns by birth year remain unclear. Objective: To estimate cancer incidence trends in successive social generations. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, incident invasive cancers were ascertained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program's 13-registry database (November 2020 submission, accessed August 14, 2023). Invasive cancers diagnosed at ages 35 to 84 years during 1992 to 2018 within 152 strata were defined by cancer site, sex, and race and ethnicity. Exposure: Invasive cancer. Main Outcome and Measures: Stratum-specific semiparametric age-period-cohort (SAGE) models were fitted and incidence per 100 000 person-years at the reference age of 60 years was calculated for single-year birth cohorts from 1908 through 1983 (fitted cohort patterns [FCPs]). The FCPs and FCP incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were compared by site for Generation X (born between 1965 and 1980) and Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964). Results: A total of 3.8 million individuals with invasive cancer (51.0% male; 8.6% Asian or Pacific Islander, 9.5% Hispanic, 10.4% non-Hispanic Black, and 71.5% non-Hispanic White) were included in the analysis. In Generation X vs Baby Boomers, FCP IRRs among women increased significantly for thyroid (2.76; 95% CI, 2.41-3.15), kidney (1.99; 95% CI, 1.70-2.32), rectal (1.84; 95% CI, 1.52-2.22), corpus uterine (1.75; 95% CI, 1.40-2.18), colon (1.56; 95% CI, 1.27-1.92), and pancreatic (1.39; 95% CI, 1.07-1.80) cancers; non-Hodgkins lymphoma (1.40; 95% CI, 1.08-1.82); and leukemia (1.27; 95% CI, 1.03-1.58). Among men, IRRs increased for thyroid (2.16; 95% CI, 1.87-2.50), kidney (2.14; 95% CI, 1.86-2.46), rectal (1.80; 95% CI, 1.52-2.12), colon (1.60; 95% CI, 1.32-1.94), and prostate (1.25; 95% CI, 1.03-1.52) cancers and leukemia (1.34; 95% CI, 1.08-1.66). Lung (IRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.50-0.72) and cervical (IRR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.89) cancer incidence decreased among women, and lung (IRR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43-0.60), liver (IRR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.91), and gallbladder (IRR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00) cancer and non-Hodgkins lymphoma (IRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.93) incidence decreased among men. For all cancers combined, FCPs were higher in Generation X than for Baby Boomers because gaining cancers numerically overtook falling cancers in all groups except Asian or Pacific Islander men. Conclusions and Relevance: In this model-based cohort analysis of incident invasive cancer in the general population, decreases in lung and cervical cancers in Generation X may be offset by gains at other sites. Generation X may be experiencing larger per-capita increases in the incidence of leading cancers than any prior generation born in 1908 through 1964. On current trajectories, cancer incidence could remain high for decades.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsSEER ProgramAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedUnited States

Identifiers

PMID38857048
PMCPMC11165384

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.