fbpx Skip to main content

How much does where your patients live affect their cancer risk? Apparently a lot. While the mechanisms are complex, studies show geography affects a number of factors that can lead to higher incidence and worse outcomes of various cancer types. 

Rural living is one of the many contexts in which geography affects risk. While rural populations are some of the least studied in terms of cancer risk, they maintain some of the highest rates. Why does this disparity exist?

The primary reasons are related to access. Unlike urban populations, rural dwellers often lack proximity to hospitals and consequent screenings, treatments, and the like. Studies have shown that those with longer travel times face later diagnoses and consequently higher mortality rates; and in one study conducted in Northern England, cancer services were actually found to be located farther from regions with the most cancer cases. Rural populations may be further impacted by influences of culture, including diet or conflicting opinions on healthcare, or work in environments with high exposure to carcinogens, which all can correlate to an increase of risk.

This is not to say that urban populations are immune to cancer risk; in actuality, many urban dwellers face similarly dangerous outcomes for very different reasons. Those living in cities are placed in much higher proximity to toxic environments, including air pollution and toxic industrial waste. More often than not, socioeconomic status and related marginalization, racial or otherwise, forces people into these toxic environments. 

Geography can also impact access to health insurance. Because Medicaid coverage varies by state, the state a patient lives in can affect cancer risk; this came to light in Tennessee, where cuts to Medicaid led to delayed treatments and later diagnoses for breast cancer. Even within a state, different cities with differing policies or degrees of social issues (i.e. racism) may face varied risk.

You May Also Like::  How to Provide Culturally Competent Care

In order to reduce the effects of geographic location on cancer risk, it may be beneficial to increase outreach and cancer screening for vulnerable populations; further, more studies must be done to gain a holistic understanding of geographic factors in order to enact policy change.

Written by Robin Baumeister


Apelberg, B. J., Buckley, T. J., & White, R. H. (2005). Socioeconomic and racial disparities in cancer risk from air toxics in Maryland. Environmental health perspectives, 113(6), 693–699. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7609

Collins, T. W., Grineski, S. E., & Morales, D. X. (2017). Environmental injustice and sexual minority health disparities: A national study of inequitable health risks from air pollution among same-sex partners. Social science & medicine (1982), 191, 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.08.040

Collins, T. W., Grineski, S. E., Chakraborty, J., & McDonald, Y. J. (2011). Understanding environmental health inequalities through comparative intracategorical analysis: racial/ethnic disparities in cancer risks from air toxics in El Paso County, Texas. Health & place, 17(1), 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.11.011

Fogleman, A. J., Mueller, G. S., & Jenkins, W. D. (2015). Does where you live play an important role in cancer incidence in the U.S.?. American journal of cancer research, 5(7), 2314–2319.

Jones, A. P., Haynes, R., Sauerzapf, V., Crawford, S. M., Zhao, H., & Forman, D. (2008). Travel times to health care and survival from cancers in Northern England. European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990), 44(2), 269–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2007.07.028

Krometis, L. A., Gohlke, J., Kolivras, K., Satterwhite, E., Marmagas, S. W., & Marr, L. C. (2017). Environmental health disparities in the Central Appalachian region of the United States. Reviews on environmental health, 32(3), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2017-0012

You May Also Like::  Surgical Approach Not Tied to Decision Regret After Prostatectomy

Lewandowska, A. M., Rudzki, M., Rudzki, S., Lewandowski, T., & Laskowska, B. (2019). Environmental risk factors for cancer – review paper. Annals of agricultural and environmental medicine : AAEM, 26(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.26444/aaem/94299

Murage, P., Crawford, S. M., Bachmann, M., & Jones, A. (2016). Geographical disparities in access to cancer management and treatment services in England. Health & place, 42, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.08.014

Sighoko, D., Hunt, B. R., Irizarry, B., Watson, K., Ansell, D., & Murphy, A. M. (2018). Disparity in breast cancer mortality by age and geography in 10 racially diverse US cities. Cancer epidemiology, 53, 178–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2018.02.003


“Keeping up with the indications and adverse reactions to immune checkpoint inhibitors can be a full-time job. Cutaneous side effects occur in up to 45% of patients treated with ipilimumab and 34% of patients treated with nivolumab and pembrolizumab.” https://bit.ly/3FGtxtd

.@spfnomt: This month’s #DermWorld article “Estate planning 101” is especially important for young physicians to read. The long, all-consuming years between adolescence and physicianhood can become a blur...https://bit.ly/3FxOtCv

That’s a wrap #AAD2023! 5 days of soaking up knowledge from dermatologists on topics such as hidradenitis, melasma, & dietary triggers of common dermatoses.

I LOVED the #womenshealth focused sessions on vulvar dermatoses and pregnancy medication safety.


New approach uses microbiome to treat skin disease by repairing the injured microbiome that allowed inflammation to flare up in the first place, rather than reducing the inflammation after the fact. https://bit.ly/3Jt6H9v

Load More