Neighborhood social and built environments have been recognized as important contexts in which health is shaped. The authors reviewed the extent to which these neighborhood factors have been addressed in population‐level cancer research by scanning the literature for research focused on specific social and/or built environment characteristics and their association with outcomes across the cancer continuum, including incidence, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, and survival. The commonalities and differences in methodologies across studies, the current challenges in research methodology, and future directions in this research also were addressed. The assessment of social and built environment factors in relation to cancer is a relatively new field, with 82% of the 34 reviewed articles published since 2010. Across the wide range of social and built environment exposures and cancer outcomes considered by the studies, numerous associations were reported. However, the directions and magnitudes of associations varied, in large part because of the variation in cancer sites and outcomes studied, but also likely because of differences in study populations, geographic regions, and, importantly, choice of neighborhood measures and geographic scales. The authors recommend that future studies consider the life‐course implications of cancer incidence and survival, integrate secondary and self‐report data, consider work neighborhood environments, and further develop analytical and statistical approaches appropriate to the geospatial and multilevel nature of the data. Incorporating social and built environment factors into research on cancer etiology and outcomes can provide insights into disease processes, identify vulnerable populations, and generate results with translational impact of relevance for interventionists and policy makers. Cancer 2015;121:2314–2330. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

Background National cancer incidence trends are presented for eight Asian American groups: Asian Indians/Pakistanis, Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, Kampucheans, Koreans, Laotians, and Vietnamese. Methods Cancer incidence data from 1990 through 2008 were obtained from 13 Surveillance, Epidemiology, End Results (SEER) registries. Incidence rates from 1990 through 2008 and average percentage change were computed using SEER*Stat and Joinpoint software. The annual percentage change (APC) in incidence rates was estimated with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) calculated for both the rate and APC estimates. Rates for non-Hispanic whites are presented for comparison. Results Prostate cancer was the most common malignancy among most groups, followed by lung, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers. Breast cancer was generally the most common cancer in women, followed by colorectal and lung cancers; liver, cervix, thyroid, and stomach cancers also ranked highly. Among men, increasing trends were observed for prostate (Asian Indians and Pakistanis: APC 1990–2003 = 2.2, 95% CI = 0.3 to 4.1; Filipinos: APC 1990–1994 = 19.0, 95% CI = 4.5 to 35.4; Koreans: APC 1990–2008 = 2.9, 95% CI = 1.8 to 4.0), colorectal (Koreans: APC 1990–2008 = 2.2, 95% CI = 0.9 to 3.5), and liver cancers (Filipinos: APC 1990–2008 = 1.6, 95% CI = 0.4 to 2.7; Koreans: APC 1990–2006 = 2.1, 95% CI = 0.4 to 3.7; Vietnamese: APC 1990–2008 = 1.6, 95% CI = 0.3 to 2.8), whereas lung and stomach cancers generally remained stable or decreased. Among women, increases were observed for uterine cancer (Asian Indians: APC 1990–2008 = 3.0, 95% CI = 0.3 to 5.8; Chinese: APC 2004–2008 = 7.0, 95% CI = 1.4 to 12.9; Filipina: APC 1990–2008 = 3.0, 95% CI = 2.4 to 3.7; Japanese: APC 1990–2008 = 1.1, 95% CI = 0.1 to 2.0), colorectal cancer (Koreans: APC 1990–2008 = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.7 to 3.9; Laotians: APC: 1990–2008 = 5.9, 95% CI = 4.0 to 7.7), lung cancer (Filipinas: APC 1990–2008 = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.4 to 2.8; Koreans: APC 1990–2008 = 2.1, 95% CI = 0.6 to 3.6), thyroid cancer (Filipinas: APC 1990–2008 = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.7 to 3.3), and breast cancer in most groups (APC 1990–2008 from 1.2 among Vietnamese and Chinese to 4.7 among Koreans). Decreases were observed for stomach (Chinese and Japanese), colorectal (Chinese), and cervical cancers (Laotians and Vietnamese). Conclusions These data fill a critical knowledge gap concerning the cancer experience of Asian American groups and highlight where increased preventive, screening, and surveillance efforts are needed—in particular, lung cancer among Filipina and Korean women and Asian Indian/Pakistani men, breast cancer among all women, and liver cancer among Vietnamese, Laotian, and Kampuchean women and Filipino, Kampuchean, and Vietnamese men.

BACKGROUND: Although married cancer patients have more favorable survival than unmarried patients, reasons underlying this association are not fully understood. The authors evaluated the role of economic resources, including health insurance status and neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES), in a large California cohort.METHODS: From the California Cancer Registry, we identified 783,167 cancer patients (386,607 deaths) who were diagnosed during 2000 through 2009 with a first primary, invasive cancer of the 10 most common sites of cancer‐related death for each sex and were followed through 2012. Age‐stratified and stage‐stratified Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for all‐cause mortality associated with marital status, adjusted for cancer site, race/ethnicity, and treatment.RESULTS: Compared with married patients, unmarried patients had an elevated risk of mortality that was higher among males (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.26‐1.29) than among females (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.18‐1.20; P_interaction < .001). Adjustment for insurance status and nSES reduced the marital status HRs to 1.22 for males and 1.15 for females. There was some evidence of synergistic effects of marital status, insurance, and nSES, with relatively higher risks observed for unmarried status among those who were under‐insured and living in high nSES areas compared with those who were under‐insured and living in low nSES areas (P_interaction = 6.8 × 10⁻⁹ among males and 8.2 × 10⁻⁸ among females).CONCLUSIONS: The worse survival of unmarried than married cancer patients appears to be minimally explained by differences in economic resources. Cancer 2016;122:1618–25. © 2016 American Cancer Society.