Multisector community partnerships (MCPs) are a key element of the public health approach to addressing social determinants of health (SDOH). The Improving SDOH-Getting Further Faster (GFF) retrospective evaluation of MCP-driven SDOH interventions was designed to generate practice-based evidence that can help guide partnerships' efforts to improve chronic disease outcomes and advance health equity by addressing SDOH. This article shares Year 2 GFF findings related to sustainability strategies for partnerships focused on SDOH and their interventions. GFF partnerships' reported sustainability strategies, including establishing shared goals and increasing partners' capacity for SDOH work through training, align well with the rich coalition building evidence base. Findings also indicate some evolution of sustainability strategies, such as adopting team-based, decentralized leadership models to help guard against partner or staff turnover. Organizations looking to form, fund, or provide technical assistance to MCPs that address SDOH can use the practice-based insights shared in this research brief to plan ahead for sustainability.

Long COVID (or post-COVID conditions) refers to symptoms or health conditions that persist or occur ≥4 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection.1 Symptoms such as brain fog, fatigue, pain, dyspnea, depression, and a wide range of other manifestations can occur and may be debilitating. The mechanism(s) of these outcomes are poorly understood, creating challenges to prevention and treatment. The study of Long COVID is rapidly evolving and approaches to describe its burden vary. However, prevalence estimates of activity- or work-limiting Long COVID among U.S. adults in the 3-5 million range have been reported.2,3 The vast number of individuals at risk of, or with symptoms of Long COVID underscores the urgency of addressing this complex public health issue. | | In April 2022, the Biden Administration launched a U.S. government-wide response to Long COVID.4 In that same year, the Department of Health and Human Services published three Long COVID reports: the National Research Action Plan5; Services and Supports for Longer-Term Impacts of COVID-196; and Health+ Long COVID Human-Centered Design Report7. These reports help direct federal efforts and identify priorities, including several that align with core public health activities (as outlined in the 10 Essential Public Health Services8). However, they do not describe the role of public health organizations in addressing Long COVID. We aimed to identify key areas in which an enhanced public health approach to Long COVID is needed.

PURPOSE: To better understand and inform how multisector community partnerships (MCPs) perform meaningful work to prevent chronic disease and advance health equity by addressing social determinants of health (SDOH). METHODS: We conducted a rapid retrospective evaluation of SDOH initiatives implemented within the past three years by 42 established MCPs across the United States. The mixed methods evaluation included document review and coding of available outcomes data, virtual discussions, and Prevention Impacts Simulation Model (PRISM) analysis. RESULTS: All 42 MCPs built community capacity for addressing SDOH through new or strengthened data systems, leveraged resources, or engaged residents, for example. Most MCPs (N = 38, 90%) reported contributions to community changes that promote healthy living. More than half of the MCPs (N = 22) reported health outcomes data for their SDOH initiatives, including improved health behaviors and clinical outcomes. Based on reach data provided by 27 MCPs, PRISM analysis results suggest that sustained initiatives could save over $633 million in productivity and medical costs cumulatively through 20 years. CONCLUSIONS: With sufficient technical assistance and funding resources, MCPs are a key component of the public health strategy to address SDOH.

Multisector community partnerships (MCPs) are key component of the public health strategy for addressing social determinants of health (SDOH) and promoting health equity. Governmental public health agencies are often members or leaders of MCPs, but few studies have examined the role of health departments in supporting MCPs' SDOH initiatives. We engaged 42 established MCPs in a rapid retrospective evaluation to better understand how MCPs' SDOH initiatives contribute to community changes that promote healthy living and improved health outcomes. As part of this work, we gained insights into how health departments support MCPs' SDOH initiatives, as well as opportunities for enhanced collaboration. Results indicate that health departments can support MCPs' SDOH initiatives through the provision of funding and technical assistance, data sharing, and connecting community organizations with shared missions, for example. Findings can be used to inform the development of funding opportunities and technical assistance for MCPs and health department partners.

Climate impacts on human health are an urgent public health issue. The effects of climate change are clear. During the past several years, states and territories have wrestled with extreme temperatures, historic rains and flooding, and the worst wildfire and drought conditions ever recorded. These events have become more severe, more frequent, and more costly in recent years.1 | | State and territorial health agencies (S/THAs), as well as local and tribal health departments, must be prepared for the inevitability of climate-related impacts on human health. They can take direct action in areas where they have authority, and they can help influence other policy actions that protect health. While responsibility for setting and enforcing federal environmental policy largely falls to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies, state and local agencies can play a significant role in advancing policy. An example of such local authority is actions taken by state governments to move toward 100% clean energy.2–5 These actions have led to more far-reaching and ambitious regulations than those established by the federal government. S/THAs can continue to take similarly bold, progressive action and work toward mitigating impacts of a changing climate based on sound science and public health impact. In this column, we outline a technical package of capacity building and policy interventions for state and territorial health officials (S/THOs) to address the range of health impacts associated with climate change.

In the wake of the significant health disparities in communities of color highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, a national commitment to address long-standing systemic health and social inequities has emerged. Addressing the underlying causes of poor health outcomes and inequity including poverty, education, housing, and access to affordable, quality health care can drive meaningful change. These social determinants of health (SDoH) are critical factors that can limit or enhance our opportunities to lead healthy lives.

Thirty-one state and territorial public health agencies participated in a learning collaborative to improve diagnosis and management of hypertension in clinical and community settings. These health agencies implemented public health and clinical interventions in medical settings and health organizations using a logic model and rapid quality improvement process focused on a framework of 4 systems-change levers: 1) data-driven action, 2) clinical practice standardization, 3) clinical-community linkages, and 4) financing and policy. We provide examples of how public health agencies applied the systems-change framework in all 4 areas to assess and modify population-based interventions to improve control of hypertension. This learning collaborative approach illustrates the importance of public health in the prevention and control of chronic disease by supporting interventions that address community and clinical linkages to address medical risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease.

Understanding the cost of initiating and operationalizing colorectal cancer (CRC) control programs is essential for planning successful implementation of evidence-based recommendations to reduce disparities in the use and quality of CRC cancer screening services. Currently, only about 58% of adults ages 50–75 years in the United States are up-to-date with CRC screening recommendations; adults without health insurance have a much lower uptake of about 24% (Sabatino, White, Thompson, & Klabunde, 2015). Targeted interventions and programs, especially those focused on the uninsured and underinsured populations, are required to meet the population-wide target of 80% by 2018 set by The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable (NCCRT, n.d.). The Community Guide contains several evidence-based recommendations for screening promotion interventions but there are very few studies on the economics of screening program implementation (Baron et al., 2010; Sabatino et al., 2012). There is an urgent need to increase the number of ‘implementation economics’ studies to develop the evidence-base to guide funding decision making, design cost-effective programs and ensure optimal use of limited resources. We define ‘implementation economics’ as a sub-discipline within implementation science that focusses on economic evaluation related to cost (cost-of-illness analysis, program cost analysis), cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-utility, budget impact, and cost minimization. | For more than a decade, CDC has funded and provided technical support to a range of grantee programs to implement CRC screening and implementation economics has been a cornerstone of the evaluations of these programs. Between 2005 and 2009, CDC administered the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) in five programs [Baltimore, Maryland; St. Louis, Missouri; the entire state of Nebraska; Suffolk County, New York; and King, Clallam and Jefferson counties in Washington] (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013a). These programs provided CRC screening for low-income, underinsured, or uninsured men and women between the ages of 50 and 64 years. In 2009, successes and lessons learned (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013b; Joseph, DeGroff, Hayes, Wong, & Plescia, 2011) from the CRCSDP informed planning and funding of the first round of CDC’s Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) (2009–2015). Through the CRCCP, CDC provided funding to 22 states and 4 tribal organizations to implement CRC programs starting in 2009 and another 3 states were added to the program in 2010. Fig. 1 provides a map of the United States highlighting the CRCCP grantees.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States, with 52% of deaths caused by cancers of the lung and bronchus, female breast, uterine cervix, colon and rectum, oral cavity and pharynx, prostate, and skin (melanoma). In the 1930s, uterine cancer, including cancer of the uterine cervix, was the leading cause of cancer deaths among women in the United States. With the advent of the Papanicolaou (Pap) test in the 1950s to detect cellular level changes in the cervix, cervical cancer death rates declined significantly. Since this first cancer screening test, others have been developed that detect the presence of cancer through imaging procedures (e.g., mammography, endoscopy, and computed tomography) and laboratory tests (e.g., fecal occult blood tests).

AIMS: To understand how US cancer control plans address alcohol use, an important but frequently overlooked cancer risk factor, and how many US adults are at risk. METHODS: We reviewed alcohol control efforts in 69 comprehensive cancer control plans in US states, tribes and jurisdictions. Using the 2011 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, we assessed the prevalence of current alcohol use among US adults and the proportion of these drinkers who exceeded guidelines for moderate drinking. RESULTS: Most comprehensive cancer control plans acknowledged alcohol use as a cancer risk factor but fewer than half included a goal, objective or strategy to address alcohol use. More than half of US adults reported current alcohol use in 2011, and two of three drinkers exceeded moderate drinking guidelines at least once in the past month. Many states that did not address alcohol use in comprehensive cancer control plans also had a high proportion of adults at risk. CONCLUSION: Alcohol use is a common cancer risk factor in the USA, but alcohol control strategies are not commonly included in comprehensive cancer control plans. Supporting the implementation of evidence-based strategies to prevent the excessive use of alcohol is one tool the cancer control community can use to reduce the risk of cancer.

For the last 22 years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) has provided high quality breast and cervical cancer screening to women who do not have health insurance or who have inadequate insurance. As the health care landscape changes, it is time for CDC to address new identified needs and opportunities to increase cancer screening and to further explore new or expanded roles for the program looking to the future. The NBCCEDP is well positioned to build upon its experience, established clinical and community partnerships, and success in serving disadvantaged and diverse populations to address important barriers to cancer screening that will persist as health reform is implemented. Additionally, the program can adapt its extensive experience with establishing and managing an organized system of delivering cancer screening and apply it to promote a more organized approach to screening through health care systems on a population level. Emphasis is placed on the implementation of evidenced-based interventions proven effective in increasing cancer screening rates, promising practices and other organizational policy and health systems interventions.

Breast and cervical cancer have had disparate impact on the lives of women. The burden of breast and cervical cancer is more prominent among some racial and ethnic minority women. Providing comprehensive care to all medically underserved women is a critical element in continuing the battle to reduce cancer burden and eliminate disparities. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program is the only nationally organized cancer screening program for underserved women in the United States. Its public health goal is to ensure access to high-quality screening, follow-up, and treatment services for diverse and vulnerable populations that, in turn, may reduce disparities.

The workplace is recognized as a setting that can profoundly influence workers’ health and well-being (1,2). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) workplace health promotion efforts address cancer prevention by focusing on cancer screening programs, community–clinical linkages, and cancer risk factors (eg, tobacco use, physical inactivity) that also influence risk for other chronic diseases (http://www.cdc.gov/workplacehealthpromotion/). Some efforts focus specifically on cancer; some focus on general chronic disease prevention. Additionally, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), part of CDC, provides research and recommendations to address workplace hazards posed by chemicals that may increase cancer risk (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/cancer/policy.html). | Existing resources can be leveraged to expand the scope of workplace initiatives to address additional cancer risk factors and disparities. Changes to the physical and social characteristics of work environments are likely to have greater impact than health education alone (3). Given the aging US population (which is expected to result in a marked increase in the number of cancer diagnoses over the coming decades) and the prevalence of numerous risk factors among working-aged adults (4,5), a multifaceted approach to cancer prevention in the workplace is timely and needed. In addition, community-based prevention efforts may offer unrealized opportunities to reach vulnerable working populations who are not served by workplace health promotion programs. In this essay, we draw attention to a wide variety of available CDC resources and provide ideas for new efforts to advance primary cancer prevention among working adults.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death and the second most commonly diagnosed cancer (excluding skin cancer) among men and women in the United States. Although lung cancer can be caused by environmental exposures, most efforts to prevent lung cancer emphasize tobacco control because 80%-90% of lung cancers are attributed to cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke. One sentinel health consequence of tobacco use is lung cancer, and one way to measure the impact of tobacco control is by examining trends in lung cancer incidence rates, particularly among younger adults. Changes in lung cancer rates among younger adults likely reflect recent changes in risk exposure. To assess lung cancer incidence and trends among men and women by age group, CDC used data from the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program for the period 2005-2009, the most recent data available. During the study period, lung cancer incidence decreased among men in all age groups except <35 years and decreased among women aged 35-44 years and 54-64 years. Lung cancer incidence decreased more rapidly among men than among women and more rapidly among adults aged 35-44 years than among other age groups. To further reduce lung cancer incidence in the United States, proven population-based tobacco prevention and control strategies should receive sustained attention and support.

Chronic diseases and injuries are now the greatest threat to health in the 21st century. Racial and ethnic disparities in health status, largely attributable to chronic diseases, are widely recognized as a priority public health and civil rights challenge. The articles in this supplement of the American Journal of Public Health document the substantial burden of disease borne by American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people. Addressing these issues should continue to be a major priority for public health, amplified in urgency by the legacy of social, environmental and cultural injustices that have been inflicted on these populations.

OBJECTIVES: We present regional patterns and trends in all-cause mortality and leading causes of death in American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs). METHODS: US National Death Index records were linked with Indian Health Service (IHS) registration records to identify AI/AN deaths misclassified as non-AI/AN. We analyzed temporal trends for 1990 to 2009 and comparisons between non-Hispanic AI/AN and non-Hispanic White persons by geographic region for 1999 to 2009. Results focus on IHS Contract Health Service Delivery Area counties in which less race misclassification occurs. RESULTS: From 1990 to 2009 AI/AN persons did not experience the significant decreases in all-cause mortality seen for Whites. For 1999 to 2009 the all-cause death rate in CHSDA counties for AI/AN persons was 46% more than that for Whites. Death rates for AI/AN persons varied as much as 50% among regions. Except for heart disease and cancer, subsequent ranking of specific causes of death differed considerably between AI/AN and White persons. CONCLUSIONS: AI/AN populations continue to experience much higher death rates than Whites. Patterns of mortality are strongly influenced by the high incidence of diabetes, smoking prevalence, problem drinking, and social determinants. Much of the observed excess mortality can be addressed through known public health interventions.

OBJECTIVES: We examined regional differences in lung cancer among American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) using linked data sets to minimize racial misclassification. METHODS: On the basis of federal lung cancer incidence data for 1999 to 2009 and deaths for 1990 to 2009 linked with Indian Health Service (IHS) registration records, we calculated age-adjusted incidence and death rates for non-Hispanic AI/AN and White persons by IHS region, focusing on Contract Health Service Delivery Area (CHSDA) counties. We correlated death rates with cigarette smoking prevalence and calculated mortality-to-incidence ratios. RESULTS: Lung cancer death rates among AI/AN persons in CHSDA counties varied across IHS regions, from 94.0 per 100 000 in the Northern Plains to 15.2 in the Southwest, reflecting the strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer. For every 100 lung cancers diagnosed, there were 6 more deaths among AI/AN persons than among White persons. Lung cancer death rates began to decline in 1997 among AI/AN men and are still increasing among AI/AN women. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of regional lung cancer death rates between AI/AN and White populations indicates disparities in tobacco control and prevention interventions. Efforts should be made to ensure that AI/AN persons receive equal benefit from current and emerging lung cancer prevention and control interventions.

BACKGROUND: Despite clear recommendations and evidence linking colorectal cancer screening to lower incidence and mortality, > 40% of adults are not up to date with screening. Existing domestic and international models of organized cancer screening programs have been effective in increasing screening rates. Implementing an organized, evidence-based, national screening program may be an effective approach to increasing screening rates. METHODS: In the current study, the authors estimated the initial investment required and the cost per person screened of a nationwide fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer screening program among adults aged 50 years to 75 years. RESULTS: The initial additional investment required was estimated at $277.9 to $318.2 million annually, with an estimated 8.7 to 9.4 million individuals screened at a cost of $32 to $39 per person screened. The program was estimated to prevent 2900 to 3100 deaths annually. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study indicate that implementing a national screening program would make a substantial public health impact at a moderate cost per person screened. Results from this analysis may provide useful information for understanding the public health benefit of an organized screening delivery system and the potential resources required to implement a nationwide colorectal cancer screening program, and help guide decisions about program planning, design, and implementation.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death and the second most commonly diagnosed cancer (excluding skin cancer) among men and women in the United States. Although lung cancer can be caused by environmental exposures, most efforts to prevent lung cancer emphasize tobacco control because 80%-90% of lung cancers are attributed to cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke. One sentinel health consequence of tobacco use is lung cancer, and one way to measure the impact of tobacco control is by examining trends in lung cancer incidence rates, particularly among younger adults. Changes in lung cancer rates among younger adults likely reflect recent changes in risk exposure. To assess lung cancer incidence and trends among men and women by age group, CDC used data from the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program for the period 2005-2009, the most recent data available. During the study period, lung cancer incidence decreased among men in all age groups except <35 years and decreased among women aged 35-44 years and 54-64 years. Lung cancer incidence decreased more rapidly among men than among women and more rapidly among adults aged 35-44 years than among other age groups. To further reduce lung cancer incidence in the United States, proven population-based tobacco prevention and control strategies should receive sustained attention and support.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making improves value-concordant decision-making around prostate cancer screening (PrCS). Yet, PrCS discussions remain complex, challenging and often emotional for physicians and average-risk men. OBJECTIVE: In July 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to identify priorities for funding agencies and development groups to promote evidence-based, value-concordant decisions between men at average risk for prostate cancer and their physicians. DESIGN: Two-day multidisciplinary expert panel in Atlanta, Georgia, with structured discussions and formal consensus processes. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen panelists represented diverse specialties (primary care, medical oncology, urology), disciplines (sociology, communication, medical education, clinical epidemiology) and market sectors (patient advocacy groups, Federal funding agencies, guideline-development organizations). MAIN MEASURES: Panelists used guiding interactional and evaluation models to identify and rate strategies that might improve PrCS discussions and decisions for physicians, patients and health systems/society. Efficacy was defined as the likelihood of each strategy to impact outcomes. Effort was defined as the relative amount of effort to develop, implement and sustain the strategy. Each strategy was rated (1-7 scale; 7 = maximum) using group process software (ThinkTank(TM)). For each group, intervention strategies were grouped as financial/regulatory, educational, communication or attitudinal levers. For each strategy, barriers were identified. KEY RESULTS: Highly ranked strategies to improve value-concordant shared decision-making (SDM) included: changing outpatient clinic visit reimbursement to reward SDM; development of evidence-based, technology-assisted, point-of-service tools for physicians and patients; reframing confusing prostate cancer screening messages; providing pre-visit decision support interventions; utilizing electronic health records to promote benchmarking/best practices; providing additional training for physicians around value-concordant decision-making; and using re-accreditation to promote training. CONCLUSIONS: Conference outcomes present an expert consensus of strategies likely to improve value-concordant prostate cancer screening decisions. In addition, the methodology used to obtain agreement provides a model of successful collaboration around this and future controversial cancer screening issues, which may be of interest to funding agencies, educators and policy makers.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established and supported a 4-year Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) from 2005 to 2009 for low-income, under- or uninsured men and women aged 50-64 at 5 sites in the United States. METHODS: A multiple methods evaluation was conducted including 1) a longitudinal, comparative case study of program implementation, 2) the collection and analysis of client-level screening and diagnostic services outcome data, and 3) the collection and analysis of program- and patient-level cost data. RESULTS: Several themes emerged from the results reported in the series of articles in this Supplement. These included the benefit of building on an existing infrastructure, strengths and weakness of both the 2 most frequently used screening tests (colonoscopy and fecal occult blood tests), variability in costs of maintaining this screening program, and the importance of measuring the quality of screening tests. Population-level evaluation questions could not be answered because of the small size of the participating population and the limited time frame of the evaluation. The comprehensive evaluation of the program determined overall feasibility of this effort. CONCLUSIONS: Critical lessons learned through the implementation and evaluation of the CDC's CRCSDP led to the development of a larger population-based program, the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP). Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2940-6. (c) 2013 American Cancer Society.

Mammography screening rates in the United States have remained fairly stable over the past decade, and screening rates remain low for some groups. We examined insights from recent public health research on breast cancer screening to identify promising new approaches to improve screening rates and address persistent health disparities in mammography use. We considered this research in the context of the four strategic directions of the National Prevention Strategy: elimination of health disparities, empowered people, healthy and safe community environments, and clinical and community preventive services. This research points to the value of direct outreach and case management services, interventions to support more patient-centered models of care, and more organized, population-based approaches to identify women who are eligible to be screened, encourage participation, and monitor results.

Screening tests for the early detection of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer are prioritized clinical preventive services that can reduce the burden of cancer in the United States.1 While significant progress has been made in this area, screening rates for breast and cervical cancers have not improved in almost a decade and rates for colorectal cancer are unacceptably low. Lack of insurance has traditionally been the main factor preventing adults from obtaining cancer screening.2 Components of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will help address this through Medicaid expansion, subsidized state insurance exchanges, and the elimination of cost sharing. | However, access to health insurance and medical care are not the only factors that limit participation in cancer screening. Many people who currently have health insurance and regular access to medical care are not being screened. Based on 2010 National Health Interview Survey data, among adults aged 50 to 75 years with a regular source of medical care, only 62% were up to date with screening for colorectal cancer and only 75% of women in this age range had received a mammogram within the preceding 2 years.3 Analyses of national Medicare data revealed that, despite coverage of cancer screening services, only 66% of eligible women had undergone a mammogram within the past 2 years4 and only 47% of adults had insurance claims documenting adequate screening for colorectal cancer.5 To realize the full potential of anticipated improvements in access to care, public health must provide leadership to ensure that cancer screening is proactive, organized, and equitable.

BACKGROUND: Annual updates on cancer occurrence and trends in the United States are provided through collaboration between the American Cancer Society (ACS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR). This year's report highlights the increased cancer risk associated with excess weight (overweight or obesity) and lack of sufficient physical activity (<150 minutes of physical activity per week). METHODS: Data on cancer incidence were obtained from the CDC, NCI, and NAACCR; data on cancer deaths were obtained from the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. Annual percent changes in incidence and death rates (age-standardized to the 2000 US population) for all cancers combined and for the leading cancers among men and among women were estimated by joinpoint analysis of long-term trends (incidence for 1992-2008 and mortality for 1975-2008) and short-term trends (1999-2008). Information was obtained from national surveys about the proportion of US children, adolescents, and adults who are overweight, obese, insufficiently physically active, or physically inactive. RESULTS: Death rates from all cancers combined decreased from 1999 to 2008, continuing a decline that began in the early 1990s, among men and among women in most racial and ethnic groups. Death rates decreased from 1999 to 2008 for most cancer sites, including the 4 most common cancers (lung, colorectum, breast, and prostate). The incidence of prostate and colorectal cancers also decreased from 1999 to 2008. Lung cancer incidence declined from 1999 to 2008 among men and from 2004 to 2008 among women. Breast cancer incidence decreased from 1999 to 2004 but was stable from 2004 to 2008. Incidence increased for several cancers, including pancreas, kidney, and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, which are associated with excess weight. CONCLUSIONS: Although improvements are reported in the US cancer burden, excess weight and lack of sufficient physical activity contribute to the increased incidence of many cancers, adversely affect quality of life for cancer survivors, and may worsen prognosis for several cancers. The current report highlights the importance of efforts to promote healthy weight and sufficient physical activity in reducing the cancer burden in the United States.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in collaboration with partners in the cancer research community and state health departments, is pleased to support this series of important articles on “Melanoma Surveillance in the United States.” This supplement represents advancements in our knowledge of melanoma incidence and trends and provides the most comprehensive, state-by-state examination of the status of melanoma cancer in the United States to date. A common and largely preventable disease, it is important to monitor and watch trends to identify opportunities for action. CDC’s National Program of Cancer Registries provides the foundation for melanoma surveillance and offers opportunities to ensure treatment quality and use cancer registry data to drive decision making on policy and systems change. These data can also be used to guide future prevention efforts and tailor early detection and primary prevention efforts to communities with the greatest needs. | CDC has been building the science base for chronic disease prevention and health promotion to improve the health of Americans. This series continues to enhance our knowledge of what works and what more needs to be done to lessen the burden of melanoma in the United States. The cost of cancer extends beyond the number of lives cut short and new diagnoses each year. Persons with melanoma, and their family members, friends, and caregivers, may face physical, emotional, social, and economic challenges as a result of their cancer diagnosis and treatment. New analyses conducted by CDC health economists in this supplement identify the costs associated with melanoma to understand the impact of the disease on society and allow us to make the business case for prevention and policy change. CDC’s Comprehensive Cancer Control Programs in states, territories, and tribal organizations provide opportunities to develop and implement policy, system, and environmental changes that can reduce exposure to ultraviolet radiation and thereby prevent skin cancer, increase access to quality treatment, and address the long-term needs of cancer survivors.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of | cancer deaths in the United States, killing more nonsmokers than any other cancer.1 In 2006, more than 139,000 | people were diagnosed with CRC and more than 53,000 | died of the disease.2 Screening can effectively decrease | CRC incidence and mortality in 2 ways: first, unlike most | cancers, screening offers the opportunity to prevent cancer by removing premalignant polyps; second, screening | can detect CRC early when treatment is more effective.3,4 If | CRC is diagnosed at early stages, the 5-year survival rate is | more than 88%.5 In a modeling study to assess deaths | prevented through increased use of clinical preventive | services, Farley et al6 estimated that 1900 deaths could be | prevented for every 10% increase in CRC screening with a | colonoscopy.

PROBLEM/CONDITION: Population-based screening is conducted to detect diseases or other conditions in persons before symptoms appear; effective screening leads to early detection and treatment, thereby reducing disease-associated morbidity and mortality. Based on systematic reviews of the evidence of the benefits and harms and assessments of the net benefit of screening, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends population-based screening for colon and rectum cancer, female breast cancer, and uterine cervix cancer. Few publications have used national data to examine the stage at diagnosis of these screening-amenable cancers. REPORTING PERIOD COVERED: 2004-2006. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEMS: Data were obtained from cancer registries affiliated with CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Combined data from the NPCR and SEER programs provide the best source of information on national population-based cancer incidence. Data on cancer screening were obtained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. This report provides stage-specific cancer incidence rates and screening prevalence by demographic characteristics and U.S. state. RESULTS: Approximately half of colorectal and cervical cancer cases and one third of breast cancer cases were diagnosed at a late stage of disease. Incidence rates of late-stage cancer differed by age, race/ethnicity, and state. Incidence rates of late-stage colorectal cancer increased with age and were highest among black men and women. Incidence rates of late-stage breast cancer were highest among women aged 60-79 years and black women. Incidence rates of late-stage cervical cancer were highest among women aged 50-79 years and Hispanic women. The percentage of persons who received recommended screening differed by age, race/ethnicity, and state. INTERPRETATION: Differences in late-stage cancer incidence rates might be explained partially by differences in screening use. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION: The findings in this report emphasize the need for ongoing population-based surveillance and reporting to monitor late-stage cancer incidence trends. Screening can identify colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers in earlier and more treatable stages of disease. Multiple factors, including individual characteristics and health behaviors as well as provider and clinical systems factors, might account for why certain populations are underscreened. Cancer control planners, including comprehensive cancer-control programs, can use late-stage cancer incidence and screening prevalence data to identify populations that would benefit from interventions to increase screening utilization and to monitor performance of early detection programs.