1 / 16

Cancer Clusters and Environmental Quality Shanghai-California Environmental Health Conference

Cancer Clusters and Environmental Quality Shanghai-California Environmental Health Conference. Richard Kreutzer, M.D. California – China Environmental Health Training Program. Epidemiology is….  The study of the distribution and determinants of disease in human populations.

Download Presentation

Cancer Clusters and Environmental Quality Shanghai-California Environmental Health Conference

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Cancer Clusters and Environmental QualityShanghai-California Environmental Health Conference Richard Kreutzer, M.D. California – China Environmental Health Training Program

  2. Epidemiology is…  The study of the distribution and determinants of disease in human populations.  Characterizing disease as to person, place and time.

  3. “Cluster” “An unusual aggregation of health events that are grouped together in time and space…” CDC Guidelines for investigating clusters of Health Events, 1990

  4. Some Well-Known Cancer Clusters

  5. Clusters • What are they-concept of randomness • 5858 census tracts; 80 cancer sites=4686 clusters at 0.01 significance level • Why has DHS studied them • What is the success rate around the world • What has been the approach • The cluster investigation manual • What can be determined by looking at cluster cases

  6. Clusters in the United States Represent • Fear of environment • Distrust of government • Frustration with lack of control over one’s surroundings • Large degree of ignorance about disease

  7. The Probability of at least one statistically significant cluster in a census tract home or town Appendix A There are 440 towns with less than 10,000 population in California, and about 5,000 census tracts with around 5,000 population each. For diseases with an average expectation of five or more cases per time period of interest we can say the following: In 100 such locations, the likelihood that a given disease (e.g. .lung cancer) is elevated enough to be statistically significant with a p value of .05 is 5%. So on the average, five out of 100 towns will show an elevation significant at the .05 level, while 95 towns will not. What is the probability of a town escaping both lung cancer and bowel cancer clusters of p value of .05? The probability of -A and B is P(A) x P(B). So the answer is (.95) x'(.95) or .903. What is the probability of a town escaping a cluster of each and every, one of the 80 major classifications of cancer? Answer: (.95)80 = .0165 What is the probability of at least one type of cancer cluster? Answer: 1.00 minus the probability of no cluster, or 1.00 minus .0165 = .9835

  8. The Probability of at least one statistically significant cluster in a census tract home or town (Cont.) So there is a 98.4% probability that a town will have at least one type of cancer cluster at the p = .05 level. Using your calculator you can verify the following figures: Probability of escaping Probability of at least one of P Value all 80 types of caner 80 cancers being elevated .0l .447 .553 .0001 .992 .008 So we can expect 8 out of 1,000 towns or census tracts to have at least one of 80 types of cancer elevated at the P = 1/10,000 level of significance. Since there are 5,440 localities in California, that means we can expect about 44 towns will have clusters of that extreme statistical significance. About half the towns will have P = -.01- significant clusters.

  9. Comparison of Clusters E.coli Cancer Cluster Disease Agent Other Causes Latency Rare Can be cultured from a case Few 2-5 days Common Can’t be determined medically Many Years

  10. Taylor & Wilde, “Drawing the line with Leukemia”

  11. Limitations of Science for Cluster Questions  Paradox’s of epidemiology • Large numbers –small confidence intervals (clusters disappear in average) • Small numbers-large confidence intervals (insufficient power) • Population vs. individual risk •  Can look for known carcinogens •  Rarely can identify new carcinogens •  What should its role be in a democracy? • Science vs. pseudoscience • Citizen intuition vs. scientific certainty

  12. Categories of Epidemiologic Studies Disease No Disease Total Exposed Exposed Total Not Exposed Not Exposed Total with Disease Total without Disease Richard Kreutzer, M.D.

  13. Figure 2. Toxicants as Causes of Disease: The General Model Chemicals in the Environment HOW CHEMICALS CAN AFFECT YOUR BODY • Air • Water • Soil Travel Through……. • Breathing • Eating • Touching Get into body by….. Chemical effects on your body depend on …… • Harmfulness of chemical • Amount of chemical • Length of exposure to chemical HEALTHIMPACT

  14. Determinants of Disease Environmental Genetic Behavioral Disease Psychological Other Diseases Lifestyle Occupational

  15. Figure 4. Regulatory Agency and EHIB Action Regarding Toxicant Levels *Must consider how study would be used and its feasibility. Should obtain community and individual informed consent.

  16. Type of Health Outcome Exposure Common, widespread exposure Rare, unique exposure Common Outcome Rare, Unusual Outcome How would different approaches to looking at clusters perform for these different situations? Approaches: Conclusions: • Respond to inquires – Could pick up (B) and (D) • This approach could (and did) confirm the clusters of vaginal cancer and hemangiosarcoma • Actively search for clusters – Could pick up (B) and (D) • A cluster hunting team scanning registry data could probably have found these rare and unusual clusters, although perhaps later than Approach 1 because of the lag time for registration. • Study unusual exposures – Could pick up (C) • EHIB has mainly concentrated on being vigilant for new, unusual exposures and their possible consequences (e.g., aerial application of malathion). • The combination of Approaches 1 and 3 could pick up (B), (C), and (D). • None of these approaches would be a good way to detect (A). • Is there a compelling reason for Approach 2?

More Related