Cited by 67Global Cancer Incidence and ScreeningEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsCancer Risks and Factors

Endometrial cancer trends by race and histology in the USA: projecting the number of new cases from 2015 to 2040.

Open access
Gaber, Charles, Meza, Rafael, Ruterbusch, Julie J., Cote, Michele L.·2017·Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study is to explore incidence and incidence-based mortality trends for endometrial cancer in the USA and project future incident cases, accounting for differences by race and histological subtype. Methods Data on age-adjusted and age-specific incidence and mortality rates of endometrial cancer were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 18 registries. Trends in rates were analyzed using Joinpoint regression, and average annual percent change (AAPC) in recent years (2006-2011) was computed for histological subtypes by race. Age, histological, and race-specific rates were applied to US Census Bureau population census estimates to project new cases from 2015 to 2040, accounting for observed AAPC trends, which were progressively attenuated for the future years. Results The annual number of cases is projected to increase substantially from 2015 to 2040 across all racial groups. Considerable variation in incidence and mortality trends was observed both between and within racial groups when considering histology. Conclusions As the US population undergoes demographic changes, incidence of endometrial cancer is projected to rise. The increase will occur in all racial groups, but larger increases will be seen in aggressive histology subtypes that disproportionately affect black women.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40615-016-0292-2

Cites

31 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gaber, C., Meza, R., Ruterbusch, J. J., & Cote, M. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Wayne State University (US)
Corresponding author
Meza, Rafael
Venue
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
Published
2016-10-17
Volume
4
Issue
5
Pages
895-903
ISSN
  • 2196-8837 (ISSN-L)
  • 2197-3792
OpenAlex
W2535870091
Cited by
66
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (P30CA022453)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Risks and Factors
Keywords
endometrial cancer, cancer incidence trends, cancer mortality, racial disparities, histological subtypes, incidence projections, Black women, age-specific incidence, SEER database, population projections

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review