Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 16,579

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cancer statistics, 2018

Open access
Siegel, Rebecca L., Miller, Kimberly D., Jemal, Ahmedin·2018·CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians

Abstract

Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival. Incidence data, available through 2014, were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data, available through 2015, were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, 1,735,350 new cancer cases and 609,640 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Over the past decade of data, the cancer incidence rate (2005‐2014) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% annually in men, while the cancer death rate (2006‐2015) declined by about 1.5% annually in both men and women. The combined cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2015 by a total of 26%, translating to approximately 2,378,600 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak. Of the 10 leading causes of death, only cancer declined from 2014 to 2015. In 2015, the cancer death rate was 14% higher in non‐Hispanic blacks (NHBs) than non‐Hispanic whites (NHWs) overall (death rate ratio [DRR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.13‐1.15), but the racial disparity was much larger for individuals aged <65 years (DRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.29‐1.32) compared with those aged ≥65 years (DRR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06‐1.09) and varied substantially by state. For example, the cancer death rate was lower in NHBs than NHWs in Massachusetts for all ages and in New York for individuals aged ≥65 years, whereas for those aged <65 years, it was 3 times higher in NHBs in the District of Columbia (DRR, 2.89; 95% CI, 2.16‐3.91) and about 50% higher in Wisconsin (DRR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.56‐2.02), Kansas (DRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.25‐1.81), Louisiana (DRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38‐1.60), Illinois (DRR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.39‐1.57), and California (DRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.38‐1.54). Larger racial inequalities in young and middle‐aged adults probably partly reflect less access to high‐quality health care. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:7‐30 . © 2018 American Cancer Society .

Overview

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 · 10.3322/caac.21442

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 16,579

Metadata

Authors
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., & Jemal, A.
Venue
CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-01
Volume
68
Issue
1
Pages
7-30
ISSN
  • 0007-9235 (ISSN-L)
  • 1542-4863
OpenAlex
W2781525129
Cited by
16,579
References
4
FWCI
1063.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cancer statistics, 2018. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3322/caac.21442
The paper
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., & Jemal, A. (2018). Cancer statistics, 2018. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21442

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.