Next Article in Journal
Characterizing Retail Food Environments in Peri-Urban Pakistan during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Previous Article in Journal
The Psychological Well-Being of Older Chinese Immigrants in Canada amidst COVID-19: The Role of Loneliness, Social Support, and Acculturation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 14
10.3390/ijerph19148613
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Geographic Context of Racial Disparities in Aggressive Endometrial Cancer Subtypes: Integrating Social and Environmental Aspects to Discern Biological Outcomes

by
Anna Kimberly Miller
1,
Jennifer Catherine Gordon
2,3,
Jacqueline W. Curtis
3,4,*,
Jayakrishnan Ajayakumar
4,
Fredrick R. Schumacher
3,4 and
Stefanie Avril
3,5,*
1
Department of Genetic and Genome Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA
2
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University Hospitals Cleveland and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA
3
Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA
4
Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA
5
Department of Pathology, University Hospitals Cleveland and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(14), 8613; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148613
Submission received: 4 June 2022 / Revised: 12 July 2022 / Accepted: 13 July 2022 / Published: 15 July 2022
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The number of Endometrial Carcinoma (EC) diagnoses is projected to increase substantially in coming decades. Although most ECs have a favorable prognosis, the aggressive, non-endometrioid subtypes are disproportionately concentrated in Black women and spread rapidly, making treatment difficult and resulting in poor outcomes. Therefore, this study offers an exploratory spatial epidemiological investigation of EC patients within a U.S.-based health system’s institutional cancer registry (n = 1748) to search for and study geographic patterns. Clinical, demographic, and geographic characteristics were compared by histotype using chi-square tests for categorical and t-tests for continuous variables. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the impact of risks on these histotypes. Cox proportional hazard models measured risks in overall and cancer-specific death. Cluster detection indicated that patients with the EC non-endometrioid histotypes exhibit geographic clustering in their home address, such that congregate buildings can be identified for targeted outreach. Furthermore, living in a high social vulnerability area was independently associated with non-endometrioid histotypes, as continuous and categorical variables. This study provides a methodological framework for early, geographically targeted intervention; social vulnerability associations require further investigation. We have begun to fill the knowledge gap of geography in gynecologic cancers, and geographic clustering of aggressive tumors may enable targeted intervention to improve prognoses.

1. Introduction

Endometrial carcinoma (EC) is the most common cancer of the female genital tract [1]. It is categorized into five frequent histological subtypes (histotypes), which describe the histological characteristics and biological behavior of the tumor: endometrioid, serous, mixed, and clear-cell carcinoma, and carcinosarcoma [2]. While endometrioid is the most common histology, representing about 75% of all EC, histotype-specific cancer incidence differs by population, where Black women in the US have lower survival and are disproportionately diagnosed with the aggressive non-endometrioid histotypes [2,3]. Prior risk stratification systems show that Black women in the U.S. have poorer outcomes, as they are diagnosed at a later stage [4] with higher grade [5] and more aggressive non-endometrioid histology [6]. Although Black women often present with more advanced stages of disease, higher-grade tumors, and aggressive histotypes, their survival is significantly lower for all histotypes even after stratifying by age, stage, and grade [7,8,9].
To improve EC incidence, treatment, and severity outcomes, prior studies on racial disparities have only analyzed biological factors, such as age or Body Mass Index (BMI), in isolation. For example, age is associated with cancer risk, where older individuals are overall at an increased risk for cancer, including EC [10]. Obesity has inflammatory components that are related to many major chronic diseases, including endometrial cancer [8]. BMI is a strong risk factor for the most prevalent endometrioid histotype, where higher BMI tends to be associated with lower-grade and earlier-stage tumors but is a weaker and more contradicted risk factor for the less prevalent but more aggressive non-endometrioid histotype [11]. While the focus on biological risks is essential, it does not fully explain the racial disparities that are observed. Another potential driver of disparities is access to healthcare. However, there is some evidence that demonstrates that this too is not enough to explain the racial differences that exist [8,12,13]. What else may be driving these outcomes? Furthermore, of these other potential risks, what is detectable such that it can be modified or included in risk stratification for patients so that clinicians can provide improved personalized care [14,15]? In the United States, it is known that there exists a racially patterned landscape, such that Black people are disproportionately exposed to a range of carcinogenic social and environmental risks [13,16,17]. How might this landscape be associated with tumor biology in endometrial cancer? This study presents an exploratory spatial epidemiological investigation of this question, as currently, the interactions of biological, sociodemographic, and environmental mechanisms driving the outcome disparities remain poorly understood [15].
Spatial epidemiology offers geographically contextualized approaches to measure dimensions of small areas, such as neighborhoods, and of individuals within these areas. Such analyses usually rely on mapping patient residential addresses as points on a map in a Geographic Information System (GIS) and then adding other relevant layers, ranging from community level social determinants of health to individual locations of risks (e.g., violent crime, hazardous facilities). This geographic context surrounding where a patient with endometrial cancer lives can then be quantified and integrated in modeling with their individual-level characteristics [18]. GIS has been widely utilized in cancer epidemiology, but less so specifically in the study of endometrial cancer [19,20]. Furthermore, even fewer studies have used GIS to investigate spatial patterns of potential etiological variables in tumor biology. Instead, most have focused on other aspects of the Cancer Control Continuum, such as prevention, early detection, diagnosis, etc. [21]. Recently, however, there has been growing interest in the neighborhood-level associations linked to racial disparities in breast cancer biology, particularly the role of neighborhood deprivation and molecular mechanisms [22]. Building from this framework, this study explored associations between endometrial tumor biology and two widely utilized, and widely accessible, geographic datasets that can be proxies for different aspects of neighborhood deprivation: the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) [23] and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) [24,25]. The TRI is a dataset of facilities that handle toxic chemicals monitored by the EPA. Each record lists the amounts of all reportable chemicals at a geographic location, including the x,y coordinate and all associated variables (For a complete list of variables reported in the TRI, see: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/tri-basic-data-file-documentation-ry2020_100721.pdf, accessed on 19 January 2022), and can be mapped using GIS. The TRI has been widely used in cancer literature to investigate the role of environmental hazards on disease [26,27,28]. While the TRI can be used to investigate chemical exposure and disease outcome, drawing from environmental justice and environmental racism research, it can also be used as a marker of racially patterned aspects of neighborhood deprivation [29]. In this study, we used this dataset to explore if and perhaps how it may be associated with tumor biology. The second exploratory dataset we used was the SVI. It is a composite area-based measure of 15 census variables at the county and census tract levels covering four themes: socioeconomic status, household composition and disability, minority status and language, and housing type and transportation. The cancer literature has used SVI to assess the resiliency and vulnerability of different communities to external stress [30,31]. In this study, it was used as a marker of the geographic context of socioeconomic conditions in the patients’ residential area. Overall, associations between tumor type and geographic context, such as neighborhood deprivation, have not been studied in EC. We suggest that markers of neighborhood deprivation risks can be associated with histotype and the underlying biology. We sought to examine the association of endometrioid versus non-endometrioid histology and survival with an individual’s social and physical environment.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Population

We collected data from 4039 patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer, including endometrioid and non-endometrioid subtypes, between 1998 and 2021 at University Hospitals Cleveland (UH) Seidman Cancer Center from the institutional cancer registry, with follow-up for 22 years. All patients were treated with primary surgery including hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Additionally, Patients considered to be at high-risk for recurrence, including those with non-endometrioid subtypes or advanced stage (FIGO stage II or III), were offered adjuvant chemotherapy or pelvic radiation. These individuals were matched with the Ohio Cancer Incidence Surveillance System (OCISS) from 1992 to 2018 in order to obtain outcome data for overall and cancer-specific survival. Records were excluded if they did not have a complete street address and, of these, if the residential address listed was outside of Ohio. The fifteen counties comprising the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCCC) catchment area were used to define the study area. All residential addresses that were located within these counties were geocoded and within this dataset, addresses that did not have high positional accuracy were removed, resulting in a dataset of 3582 women. Only 1748 women could be linked by diagnosis date between the two datasets, and 836 were excluded due to missing data (Figure S1). While we were unable to use the full original dataset, the proportions of race (Black or White women) and disease stage (stage I or higher stage) are similar between both datasets.

2.2. Demographic Characteristics

Relevant variables available from our institutional cancer registry include histology, height, weight, FIGO stage, race, and residential addresses (subsequently geocoded to X-, Y-coordinates). Patients were categorized as having endometrioid versus non-endometrioid histotypes. The non-endometrioid category comprises several histotypes, including serous, clear cell, or mixed carcinoma, and carcinosarcoma.
The OCISS database contains statewide cancer surveillance data for incidence and survival of cancer by the National Program of Cancer Registries. All cancer cases diagnosed among Ohio residents, except for basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, are reported to OCISS. The OCISS database follows the data standards and data dictionary of the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries and includes clinical characteristics at diagnosis (stage, grade, and cancer site), demographics (age, sex, and race), date of diagnosis, primary treatment information, vital status follow-up, and cause of death.

2.3. Geospatial Analyses

Patient residential addresses with complete model data were available for 912 unique patients, with high positional accuracy. Each individual was geocoded to their point level locations. Spatial epidemiological cluster detection techniques, Local Moran’s I (LMI) [32], Gi* [33], and GeoMEDD [34] were used to investigate geographic patterns of non-endometrioid subtypes within the CCCC area in ArcMap (v = 10.7.1) [35]. Local Moran’s I and Gi* have been used widely in detection of cancer clusters [19,28,36,37], while GeoMEDD is a new approach developed in COVID-19 spatial syndromic surveillance [34]. Local Moran’s I and Gi* operate on aggregate geographic units, such as census tracts, in this case. GeoMEDD output is based on the boundary of point level cases based on user-defined space–time relationships, which identify granular concentrations, such as at a street segment or building level. While GeoMEDD reports only the presence of geographical areas that meet user-specified spatial and temporal relationships (but not significance thresholds), LMI and Gi* compare the observed spatial pattern of disease with the null hypothesis of complete spatial randomness (CSR) as generated by 999 Monte Carlo simulations [28,38]. Local Moran’s I and Gi* were calculated for the rate of non-endometrioid subtypes by census tract, with neighbors defined as having shared boundaries and vertices (1st order queen contiguity matrix). The output from these techniques is multiple clusters of varying sizes and significance thresholds of p ≤ 0.01. For example, some clusters may be p = 0.01, while others may be p = 0.0025, etc. Therefore, results are reported for all clusters as p ≤ 0.01. It should also be noted that these significance values are pseudo p-values, as spatial cluster detection inherently relies on multiple testing procedures [39].
Neighborhood deprivation proximate to each address was integrated within a Geographic Information System (GIS). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) approximated social conditions using 15 census variables at the census tract level (Figure 1) [24]. Each census tract was ranked by percentiles ranging from 0 to 1 with greater values indicating greater social vulnerability [24]. For each patient, an 800-m buffer was drawn circling their address at diagnosis and the average SVI score for the year 2018 was individually coded. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) served as another marker of risk in the home environment of each patient [23]. Geographic X, Y coordinates pinpointed each facility’s location. Using the 800-m buffer, the number of TRI facilities as well as the mean and median chemical release values reported by these facilities for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 were calculated for each patient (Figure 1). This buffer size was selected for this exploratory analysis based on its widespread use as a walkable distance in numerous studies on utilization of the neighborhood environment [40,41].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Clinical, demographic, and environmental characteristics were compared by histotype (endometrioid versus non-endometrioid) using chi-square tests for categorical variables (i.e., FIGO stage and race) and t-tests for continuous variables (i.e., age, BMI, SVI, the total number of TRI releases (TRI density), and the number of TRI facilities (TRI count)). Normality was measured using both visual density and Q-Q plots as well the Shapiro-Wilk statistical approach. We categorized the variables SVI, TRI density, and TRI count for our modeling of outcomes. SVI quartiles were utilized, where the highest quartile captured the greatest social vulnerability. Both TRI variables were categorized as having no facilities or releases (0) or any facilities or releases (>0). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the impact of health, social, and physical environmental risks of histotypes. All multivariable models were adjusted for age, BMI, FIGO stage, and race.
A survival analysis employing Cox proportional hazard models and a log-rank test compared risk of overall death (219 deaths, 693 survival) and cancer-specific survival (72 deaths, 840 survival). Both univariate and multivariable analyses were employed for survival outcomes, where multivariable models were adjusted for age at diagnosis (continuous), BMI (obese vs. non-obese), FIGO stage (stage I vs. higher stage), and race (Black vs. White). All statistical analyses were performed using R and two-sided statistical tests were employed, where statistical significance was defined applying a threshold of p = 0.05. Given this analysis was exploratory, multiple comparisons were not considered.

3. Results

Among the 912 women with endometrial cancer, 649 (71.2%) had the endometrioid subtype and 263 (28.8%) had non-endometrioid subtypes (Table 1). Chi-square tests and t-tests reported significant differences by histotype for age, SVI, TRI density, BMI, FIGO stage, and race. On average, individuals with the non-endometrioid subtype were older, had a higher SVI, a lower density of TRI releases, a lower BMI, and a more advanced FIGO stage (stage II–IV), and were predominantly Black women (Table 1).
The three geospatial techniques identified similar statistically detectable geographic clusters of non-endometrioid histotype rates located in two high social vulnerability areas of Cuyahoga County as well as in more rural areas of northeast Ohio (p < 0.05). GeoMEDD identified clusters ranging in size from areas of a neighborhood to individual congregate living facilities. Furthermore, there were five individual addresses with at least three patients who had non-endometrioid subtype tumors. These are not duplicate records, rather they are indicative of congregate living facilities such as nursing homes and apartments. In some census tracts with low populations, it can be these individual point locations that drive the rate for the tract. In these cases, it is not neighborhood-level conditions that may be associated with the more aggressive tumor subtype, but rather women at older ages concentrated by buildings.
The results from a multivariable logistic regression model are presented in Table 2 and were adjusted for covariates (Table 1). The models measured the association of endometrioid vs. non-endometrioid histotype with either the social variable, SVI, or the environmental variables, TRI count and TRI density, adjusted for age, BMI, FIGO stage, and race. SVI was associated with histotype both as a continuous variable (OR = 2.14; 95% CI = 1.26, 3.63; p = 4.70 × 10−3; data not shown) and as a categorical variable (OR = 1.77; 95% CI = 1.16, 2.72; p = 0.008) comparing high SVI to the reference, low SVI (Table 2 and Table S1). Under the categorical variable model, women with the greatest social vulnerability index have a 77% increased risk of non-endometrioid EC compared to women residing in areas with minimal social vulnerability. Neither of the TRI variables were significantly associated with endometrioid or non-endometrioid histotypes in these multivariable models (Table 2 and Table S1).
A survival analysis evaluated the time to overall death for the social and environmental variables SVI, TRI count, and TRI density as continuous and categorical variables. In models similar to the multivariable logistic regression model, each of these variables, SVI, TRI count, and TRI density, were individually measured with adjustment by covariates age, BMI, FIGO stage, and race. SVI was associated with survival both as a continuous variable (HR = 1.86; 95% CI = 1.17, 2.94; p = 8.33 × 10−3) and as a categorical variable comparing high SVI to low SVI (HR = 1.67; 95% CI = 1.14, 2.41; p = 7.95 × 10−3) (Figure 2 and Figure S2, Table 3 and Table S2). Neither of the TRI variables were significantly associated with survival in these models (Table 3 and Table S2).
Additionally, multivariable survival analyses predicted increased likelihood of overall deaths with SVI. The association of total survival and SVI was significant in models with SVI as a continuous or a categorical variable (Table S3). Those with the high SVI category were significantly associated with death compared to those with the low SVI category. The endometrial cancer-specific deaths model did not replicate the results, which may be due to a smaller sample size of cancer-specific deaths (Table S3).

4. Discussion

We used a modeling approach to evaluate the association between endometrial cancer histotype and several community-scale factors for EC cases diagnosed in the CCCC area. A model was built to assess the relationship of endometrioid versus aggressive/non-endometrioid histotype and a novel variable, SVI, adjusting for age, BMI, FIGO stage, and race. SVI was associated with the aggressive non-endometrioid histotype as both a continuous and a categorical variable. For example, a woman residing in an area with the highest SVI quartile has a 77% increased risk for developing non-endometrioid cancer compared to the women living in the area with the lowest SVI quartile. In a race-stratified analysis, SVI is significantly associated with histotype as both a continuous and categorical variable in White women (data not shown). No significant association was detected in Black women, as the current analysis is underpowered, but the SVI odds ratios were in the same direction as the analysis with only White women. Given the impact of histotype on progression, social vulnerability may be indicative of disease severity and should be considered in the treatment of all women. While other studies have not detected an association between tumor type and SVI, SVI has been associated with poorer post-surgery outcomes [42] and less access to treatment [43,44] in cancer patients.
We also geographically clustered endometrial histotype in the CCCC area. Both endometrioid and non-endometrioid histotype clusters were detected and indicated that the CCCC area has a racially patterned external environment, as is the case throughout much of the U.S. [13]. This is the first time (to our knowledge) that endometrial histotype has been geographically clustered. The mapped output will be used internally to target clinical intervention and to direct more locally targeted analyses. The SVI data can be used to create risk stratifications based on where individuals live for more holistic treatments. Those residing in high-risk areas could receive extra screening that may lead to earlier diagnosis. Targeted screening could improve health outcomes of individuals with non-endometrioid EC, as there are fewer early diagnosable symptoms.
Follow-up studies using a greater population of endometrial-cancer-specific deaths are needed to confirm the survival analysis results. Overall, social vulnerability should be considered in treatment, as it may also be indicative of overall survival. We expect that improved screening and targeted treatment derived from SVI risk stratifications could decrease mortality rates, particularly from the high-risk non-endometrioid histotypes [45,46,47,48].
While there are significant associations between SVI and both non-endometrioid EC and survival, the biological mechanism is still unknown. High social vulnerability may be associated with biological stress responses, as the cancer literature has previously used SVI to assess the community’s resiliency and vulnerability from external stressors [30,31,49,50,51]. Future studies could better define why Black women and women residing in areas of high SVI are more frequently diagnosed with non-endometrioid EC. There could be a stress-related biological mechanism, such as changes in DNA methylation or host immune response, that is driving the increase in non-endometrioid EC diagnosis. Additionally, a particular component encompassing SVI could drive the association in different communities. A geographically weighted regression of histotype and SVI could detect distinct clusters where SVI is more or less predictive [52]. As we were unable to use the full dataset due to a lack of linkage between institutional and Ohio cancer databases based on diagnosis dates, we may be able to detect more distinct clusters with a fuller dataset. Further studies could also detect associations between each of the 15 components encompassing the SVI measurement to understand if different clusters of histotype are associated with specific vulnerabilities.
No significant association was detected between either TRI variable, continuous or categorical, and histotype or death. This may be due to the limited sample size of individuals with TRI facilities or releases greater than zero. Some women in our sample resided in regions with TRI facilities and releases greater than zero but not enough to detect a statistical difference (Figure S3). It may also be that environmental exposures are not from TRI facilities, as they are regulated, but from non-reporting facilities, which may pose more of a risk to health [16,53]. Future studies in areas with a variety of TRI exposures are needed to measure if there is a relationship between TRI facilities or releases and histotype or death.

5. Limitations

This study offers novel insights into the geographic context of tumor biology in endometrial cancer and spatial methods to search for granular places that can be targeted for education and intervention; however, it has a number of limitations that should be considered. Some of these will require further investigation as this line of inquiry develops. First, the study does not account for the temporal aspect of the exposure–outcome relationship. We do not know how long the patients lived in their home address nor if the geographic context of their surroundings in this placed changed over time, specifically in the chosen proxies for neighborhood deprivation. We also assume stationarity in the patient home addresses, which may not be the case. There is evidence to demonstrate that low-income patients in particular exhibit elevated residential mobility, often forced mobility as in the case of evictions. Furthermore, we lack knowledge of daily mobility of patients and their surroundings, such as areas where they spend their time away from the home address that may be more relevant sources of exposure to risks such as TRI. Despite its importance for measuring exposure, such “activity space” geography is not a part of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR). These limitations are a part of a larger concern, the Uncertain Geographic Context Problem (UGCoP) [54], which our team is addressing [55,56,57]. Furthermore, we lacked a replication site. Replicate studies in other cities with a history of a racially patterned environment may be needed to further support our claims [58,59]. In particular, recent studies have questioned the role of neighborhood, especially how the characteristics of deprivation, stressors, and social vulnerability influence biological processes that lead to adverse health outcomes, such as DNA methylation [60]. This study was limited to women who self-identified as Black or White. Our results cannot generalize to women of other races and ethnic groups without further analyses.

6. Conclusions

The United States displays a racially patterned external environment that likely impacts health and survival of women with EC. Individuals in our study with the more aggressive non-endometrioid subtype were predominantly Black women and resided in areas with higher social vulnerability. These associations represent an opportunity for improved targeted screening and risk stratification based on a woman’s health characteristics and geographic location. Clinical risk stratification using SVI and other risk variables can detect who benefits most from extra screening and care. Clinicians may be able to improve prediction and detection of aggressive EC and decrease poor outcomes if social and physical factors are included as risk factors.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph19148613/s1, Figure S1: Inclusion and Exclusion Flowchart; Figure S2: Association of SVI and Survival; Figure S3: Distribution of TRI Count and TRI Density; Table S1: Multivariable Models that Associate with Histotype with Continuous Variables; Table S2: Overall Deaths Multivariable Analysis with Continuous Variables; Table S3: Race Stratified Survival Model of Univariate SVI.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.K.M., J.C.G., J.W.C., F.R.S. and S.A.; data curation, J.C.G., J.W.C. and F.R.S.; formal analysis, A.K.M., J.W.C., J.A. and F.R.S.; funding acquisition, S.A.; project administration, S.A.; software, J.W.C. and J.A.; writing—original draft, A.K.M.; writing—review and editing, A.K.M., J.C.G., J.W.C., J.A., F.R.S. and S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We also acknowledge our funding sources, University Hospitals Cleveland Health Analytic and Informatics Pilot Project, NHBLI 5T32HL007567-35 (A.M.), and The Norma C. and Albert I. Geller Professorship in Ovarian Cancer Research (S.A.).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of University Hospitals Cleveland (UH 02-14-36, protocol #31, approved 25 May 2017).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was waived for this study by the Institutional Review Board due to the minimal risk to participants and retrospective nature of the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank the University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center for access to the CAISIS database, particularly John Shanahan and Ravi Kumar Kyasaram. We thank Stacy Smrz for insightful discussions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Siegel, R.; Naishadham, D.; Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2013, 63, 11–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Gaber, C.; Meza, R.; Ruterbusch, J.J.; Cote, M.L. Endometrial Cancer Trends by Race and Histology in the USA: Projecting the Number of New Cases from 2015 to 2040. J. Racial Ethn. Health Dispar. 2016, 4, 895–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Cote, M.L.; Ruterbusch, J.J.; Olson, S.H.; Lu, K.; Ali-Fehmi, R. The Growing Burden of Endometrial Cancer: A Major Racial Disparity Affecting Black Women. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2015, 24, 1407–1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Barrett, R.J., 2nd; Harlan, L.C.; Wesley, M.N.; Hill, H.A.; Chen, V.W.; Clayton, L.A.; Kotz, H.L.; Eley, J.W.; Robboy, S.J.; Edwards, B.K. Endometrial cancer: Stage at diagnosis and associated factors in black and white patients. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1995, 173, 414–422, discussion 422-3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hill, H.A.; Coates, R.J.; Austin, H.; Correa, P.; Robboy, S.J.; Chen, V.; Click, L.A.; Barrett, R.J., 2nd; Boyce, J.G.; Kotz, H.L.; et al. Racial differences in tumor grade among women with endometrial cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 1995, 56, 154–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Javadian, P.; Washington, C.; Mukasa, S.; Benbrook, D.M. Histopathologic, Genetic and Molecular Characterization of Endometrial Cancer Racial Disparity. Cancers 2021, 13, 1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Clarke, M.A.; Devesa, S.S.; Harvey, S.V.; Wentzensen, N. Hysterectomy-Corrected Uterine Corpus Cancer Incidence Trends and Differences in Relative Survival Reveal Racial Disparities and Rising Rates of Nonendometrioid Cancers. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 1895–1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cote, M.L.; Alhajj, T.; Ruterbusch, J.J.; Bernstein, L.; Brinton, L.A.; Blot, W.J.; Chen, C.; Gass, M.; Gaussoin, S.; Henderson, B.; et al. Risk factors for endometrial cancer in black and white women: A pooled analysis from the Epidemiology of Endometrial Cancer Consortium (E2C2). Cancer Causes Control 2015, 26, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Sherman, M.E.; Devesa, S.S. Analysis of racial differences in incidence, survival, and mortality for malignant tumors of the uterine corpus. Cancer 2003, 98, 176–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. White, M.C.; Holman, D.M.; Boehm, J.E.; Peipins, L.A.; Grossman, M.; Henley, S.J. Age and cancer risk: A potentially modifiable relationship. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2014, 46, S7–S15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Grandi, G.; Perrone, A.M.; Chiossi, G.; Friso, S.; Toss, A.; Sammarini, M.; Facchinetti, F.; Botticelli, L.; Palma, F.; De Iaco, P. Increasing BMI is associated with both endometrioid and serous histotypes among endometrial rather than ovarian cancers: A case-to-case study. Gynecol. Oncol. 2019, 154, 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Setiawan, V.W.; Pike, M.C.; Kolonel, L.N.; Nomura, A.M.; Goodman, M.T.; Henderson, B.E. Racial/ethnic differences in endometrial cancer risk: The multiethnic cohort study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2007, 165, 262–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Williams, D.R. Race, socioeconomic status, and health. The added effects of racism and discrimination. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1999, 896, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Doll, K.M.; Snyder, C.R.; Ford, C.L. Endometrial cancer disparities: A race-conscious critique of the literature. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2018, 218, 474–482 e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Link, B.G.; Phelan, J. Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1995, 35, 80–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Dolinoy, D.C.; Miranda, M.L. GIS modeling of air toxics releases from TRI-reporting and non-TRI-reporting facilities: Impacts for environmental justice. Environ. Health Perspect. 2004, 112, 1717–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Morello-Frosch, R.; Pastor, M.; Sadd, J. Environmental justice and Southern California’s “riskscape” the distribution of air toxics exposures and health risks among diverse communities. Urban Aff. Rev. 2001, 36, 551–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kirby, R.S.; Delmelle, E.; Eberth, J.M. Advances in spatial epidemiology and geographic information systems. Ann. Epidemiol. 2017, 27, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  19. Sahar, L.; Foster, S.L.; Sherman, R.L.; Henry, K.A.; Goldberg, D.W.; Stinchcomb, D.G.; Bauer, J.E. GIScience and cancer: State of the art and trends for cancer surveillance and epidemiology. Cancer 2019, 125, 2544–2560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gordon, J.; Blackburn, P.; Watson, C.; Ulm, M.; Daily, L.; Elnaggar, A.; Tillmanns, T. Geographic information system (GIS) analysis of food deserts in the southern United States and endometrial cancer recurrence. Gynecol. Oncol. 2018, 149, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. NIH. Cancel Control Continuum; NIH: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2020.
  22. Saini, G.; Ogden, A.; McCullough, L.E.; Torres, M.; Rida, P.; Aneja, R. Disadvantaged neighborhoods and racial disparity in breast cancer outcomes: The biological link. Cancer Causes Control 2019, 30, 677–686. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. EPA. TRI Basic Data Files: Calendar Years 1987-Present. 2021. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/tri-basic-data-files-calendar-years-1987-present (accessed on 19 January 2022).
  24. Flanagan, B.E.; Hallisey, E.J.; Adams, E.; Lavery, A. Measuring Community Vulnerability to Natural and Anthropogenic Hazards: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Social Vulnerability Index. J. Environ. Health 2018, 80, 34–36. [Google Scholar]
  25. CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic sSubstances and Disease Registry/Geospatial Research, Analysis, and Services Program. CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index Database [Ohio]. 2018. Available online: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/data_documentation_download.html (accessed on 19 January 2022).
  26. Hanchette, C.; Zhang, C.H.; Schwartz, G.G. Ovarian Cancer Incidence in the U.S. and Toxic Emissions from Pulp and Paper Plants: A Geospatial Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. McKeon, T.P.; Hwang, W.T.; Ding, Z.; Tam, V.; Wileyto, P.; Glanz, K.; Penning, T.M. Environmental exposomics and lung cancer risk assessment in the Philadelphia metropolitan area using ZIP code-level hazard indices. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2021, 28, 31758–31769. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  28. Bulka, C.; Nastoupil, L.J.; McClellan, W.; Ambinder, A.; Phillips, A.; Ward, K.; Bayakly, A.R.; Switchenko, J.M.; Waller, L.; Flowers, C.R. Residence proximity to benzene release sites is associated with increased incidence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer 2013, 119, 3309–3317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Boer, J.T.; Pastor, M.; Sadd, J.L.; Snyder, L.D. Is there environmental racism? The demographics of hazardous waste in Los Angeles County. Soc. Sci. Q. 1997, 78, 793810. [Google Scholar]
  30. Abbas, A.; Madison Hyer, J.; Pawlik, T.M. Race/Ethnicity and County-Level Social Vulnerability Impact Hospice Utilization Among Patients Undergoing Cancer Surgery. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2021, 28, 1918–1926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Diaz, A.; Dalmacy, D.; Hyer, J.M.; Tsilimigras, D.; Pawlik, T.M. Intersection of social vulnerability and residential diversity: Postoperative outcomes following resection of lung and colon cancer. J. Surg. Oncol. 2021, 124, 886–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Anselin, L. Local Indicators of Spatial Association—LISA. Geogr. Anal. 1995, 27, 93–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ord, J.K.; Getis, A. Local Spatial Autocorrelaation Statistics: Distributional Issues and an Application. Geogr. Anal. 1995, 27, 286–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Curtis, A.; Ajayakumar, J.; Curtis, J.; Mihalik, S.; Purohit, M.; Scott, Z.; Muisyo, J.; Labadorf, J.; Vijitakula, S.; Yax, J.; et al. Geographic monitoring for early disease detection (GeoMEDD). Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 21753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). ArcMap, 10.x; ESRI: Redlands, CA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  36. Clough, L.; Bayakly, A.R.; Ward, K.C.; Khan, M.K.; Chen, S.C.; Lechowicz, M.J.; Flowers, C.R.; Allen, P.B.; Switchenko, J.M. Clustering of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma is associated with increased levels of the environmental toxins benzene and trichloroethylene in the state of Georgia. Cancer 2020, 126, 1700–1707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Fan, Q.; Yao, X.A.; Han, X. Spatial variation and disparity in female breast cancer relative survival in the United States. Cancer 2021, 127, 4006–4014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Waller, L.G.C. Applied Spatial Statistics for Public Health Data; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hjalmars, U.; Kulldorff, M.; Wahlqvist, Y.; Lannering, B. Increased incidence rates but no space-time clustering of childhood astrocytoma in Sweden, 1973–1992: A population-based study of pediatric brain tumors. Cancer 1999, 85, 2077–2090. [Google Scholar]
  40. Austin, S.B.; Melly, S.J.; Sanchez, B.N.; Patel, A.; Buka, S.; Gortmaker, S.L. Clustering of fast-food restaurants around schools: A novel application of spatial statistics to the study of food environments. Am. J. Public Health 2005, 95, 1575–1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Timperio, A.; Jeffery, R.W.; Crawford, D.; Roberts, R.; Giles-Corti, B.; Ball, K. Neighbourhood physical activity environments and adiposity in children and mothers: A three-year longitudinal study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2010, 7, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Hyer, J.M.; Tsilimigras, D.I.; Diaz, A.; Mirdad, R.S.; Azap, R.A.; Cloyd, J.; Dillhoff, M.; Ejaz, A.; Tsung, A.; Pawlik, T.M. High Social Vulnerability and “Textbook Outcomes” after Cancer Operation. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2021, 232, 351–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mock, J.; Meyer, C.; Mau, L.W.; Nguyen, C.; Arora, P.; Heron, C.; Balkrishnan, R.; Burns, L.; Devine, S.; Ballen, K. Barriers to Access to Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation among Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Virginia. Transpl. Cell Ther. 2021, 27, 869 e1–869 e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Azap, R.A.; Diaz, A.; Hyer, J.M.; Tsilimigras, D.I.; Mirdad, R.S.; Ejaz, A.; Pawlik, T.M. Impact of Race/Ethnicity and County-Level Vulnerability on Receipt of Surgery Among Older Medicare Beneficiaries With the Diagnosis of Early Pancreatic Cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2021, 28, 6309–6316. [Google Scholar]
  45. Rebbeck, T.R.; Burns-White, K.; Chan, A.T.; Emmons, K.; Freedman, M.; Hunter, D.J.; Kraft, P.; Laden, F.; Mucci, L.; Parmigiani, G.; et al. Precision Prevention and Early Detection of Cancer: Fundamental Principles. Cancer Discov. 2018, 8, 803–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Lynch, S.M.; Handorf, E.; Sorice, K.A.; Blackman, E.; Bealin, L.; Giri, V.N.; Obeid, E.; Ragin, C.; Daly, M. The effect of neighborhood social environment on prostate cancer development in black and white men at high risk for prostate cancer. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0237332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lynch, S.M.; Wiese, D.; Ortiz, A.; Sorice, K.A.; Nguyen, M.; Gonzalez, E.T.; Henry, K.A. Towards precision public health: Geospatial analytics and sensitivity/specificity assessments to inform liver cancer prevention. SSM Popul. Health 2020, 12, 100640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. McIntire, R.K.; Keith, S.W.; Boamah, M.; Leader, A.E.; Glanz, K.; Klassen, A.C.; Zeigler-Johnson, C.M. A Prostate Cancer Composite Score to Identify High Burden Neighborhoods. Prev. Med. 2018, 112, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Powell-Wiley, T.M.; Baumer, Y.; Baah, F.O.; Baez, A.S.; Farmer, N.; Mahlobo, C.T.; Pita, M.A.; Potharaju, K.A.; Tamura, K.; Wallen, G.R. Social Determinants of Cardiovascular Disease. Circ. Res. 2022, 130, 782–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Hooten, N.N.; Pacheco, N.L.; Smith, J.T.; Evans, M.K. The accelerated aging phenotype: The role of race and social determinants of health on aging. Ageing Res. Rev. 2022, 73, 101536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Iyer, H.S.; Hart, J.E.; James, P.; Elliott, E.G.; DeVille, N.V.; Holmes, M.D.; De Vivo, I.; Mucci, L.A.; Laden, F.; Rebbeck, T.R. Impact of neighborhood socioeconomic status, income segregation, and greenness on blood biomarkers of inflammation. Environ. Int. 2022, 162, 107164. [Google Scholar]
  52. Brunsdont, C.; Fotheringham, S.; Charlton, M. Geographically weighted regression -Modelling spatial non-stationarity. J. R. Stat. Soc. 1998, 47, 431–443. [Google Scholar]
  53. McMaster, R.B.; Leitner, H.; Sheppard, E. GIS-based environmental equity and risk assessment: Methodological problems and prospects. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 1997, 24, 172–189. [Google Scholar]
  54. Kwan, M.P. The uncertain geographic context problem. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2012, 102, 958–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Curtis, J.E.; Shiau, B.; Lowery, D.; Sloane, K.; Hennigan, A.C. The Prospects and Problems for Integrating Sketch Maps with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to Understand Environmental Perception: A Case Study of Mapping Youth Fear in Los Angeles Gang Neighborhoods. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2014, 41, 251–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. MacMurdo, M.G.; Mulloy, K.B.; Felix, C.W.; Curtis, A.J.; Ajayakumar, J.; Curtis, J. Ambient air pollution exposure among individuals experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Environ. Health Perspect. 2022, 130, 027701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. MacMurdo, M.G.; Mulloy, K.B.; Culver, D.A.; Felix, C.W.; Curtis, A.J.; Ajayakumar, J.; Curtis, J. Mapping mobility: Utilizing local knowledge derived activity space to estimate exposure to ambient air pollution among individual experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5842. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  58. Gomez, S.L.; Shariff-Marco, S.; DeRouen, M.; Keegan, T.H.; Yen, I.H.; Mujahid, M.; Satariano, W.A.; Glaser, S.L. The impact of neighborhood social and built environment factors across the cancer continuum: Current research, methodological considerations, and future directions. Cancer 2015, 121, 2314–2330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Dunn, E.C. The Role of Neighborhood Social Characteristics on the Epigenome-Why the Lack of Investigations? JAMA Netw. Open 2020, 3, e206111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Smith, J.A.; Zhao, W.; Wang, X.; Ratliff, S.M.; Mukherjee, B.; Kardia, S.L.R.; Liu, Y.; Roux, A.V.D.; Needham, B.L. Neighborhood characteristics influence DNA methylation of genes involved in stress response and inflammation: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Epigenetics 2017, 12, 662–673. [Google Scholar]
Ijerph 19 08613 g001 550
Figure 1. For each patient, an 800-m buffer was drawn circling their address at diagnosis and the average SVI score for the year 2018 was individually coded. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) serve as another marker of risk in the home environment of each patient [23]. Geographic X, Y coordinates pinpoint each facility’s location. Using the 800-m buffer, the number of TRI facilities as well as the mean and median chemical release values reported by these facilities for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 were calculated for each patient.
Figure 1. For each patient, an 800-m buffer was drawn circling their address at diagnosis and the average SVI score for the year 2018 was individually coded. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) serve as another marker of risk in the home environment of each patient [23]. Geographic X, Y coordinates pinpoint each facility’s location. Using the 800-m buffer, the number of TRI facilities as well as the mean and median chemical release values reported by these facilities for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 were calculated for each patient.
Ijerph 19 08613 g001
Ijerph 19 08613 g002 550
Figure 2. Overall deaths survival analysis hazard ratios. In the overall deaths survival analysis, SVI high is significant (p = 0.008) when adjusting for age, BMI, FIGO stage, and race. Advanced age, higher BMI, and Black women have odds ratios greater than or equal to 1 and therefore are at an increased risk of death.
Figure 2. Overall deaths survival analysis hazard ratios. In the overall deaths survival analysis, SVI high is significant (p = 0.008) when adjusting for age, BMI, FIGO stage, and race. Advanced age, higher BMI, and Black women have odds ratios greater than or equal to 1 and therefore are at an increased risk of death.
Ijerph 19 08613 g002
Table
Table 1. Demographics of study population by histotype, mean (SD).
Table 1. Demographics of study population by histotype, mean (SD).
Endometrioid
(N = 649)		Non-Endometrioid
(N = 263)		p-Value 1
Age62.63 (10.40)65.37 (10.80)5.03 × 10−4 *
SVI0.42 (0.28)0.47 (0.30)0.01 *
TRI Count0.35 (1.43)0.51 (3.05)0.41
TRI Density881.15 (6741.13)220.138 (1493.28)0.02 *
BMI (mean (range))35.51 (13.13–87.58)33.39 (16.95–79.53)2.82 × 10−3 *
FIGO stage, stage 1 count (%)527 (81.20%)160 (60.84%)1.79 × 10−10 *
Race 4.28 × 10−10 *
Black64 (10.12%)69 (25.57%)
White585 (89.88%)194 (74.43%)
1 A t-test was performed for age, SVI, TRI count, TRI density and BMI. A chi-square test was performed for FIGO stage and race. * p-value < 0.05.
Table
Table 2. Multivariable Models that Associate Histotype with Categorical Variables.
Table 2. Multivariable Models that Associate Histotype with Categorical Variables.
Full Model SVI Full Model TRI Count Full Model TRI Density
OR (95% CI)p-Value OR (95% CI)p-Value OR (95% CI)p-Value
SVI Middle-Low1.25 (0.80, 1.95)0.34TRI Count High0.85 (0.48, 1.47)0.58TRI Density High0.99 (0.51, 1.84)0.98
SVI Middle-High1.00 (0.64, 1.55)0.99
SVI High1.77 (1.16, 2.72)0.008 *
Adjusted for age, BMI, FIGO stage, and race. * p-value < 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Overall Deaths Multivariable Analysis with Categorical Variables.
Table 3. Overall Deaths Multivariable Analysis with Categorical Variables.
Full Model SVI Full Model TRI Count 1 Full Model TRI Density 2
Hazard Ratio (95% CI)p-Value Hazard Ratio (95% CI)p-Value Hazard Ratio (95% CI)p-Value
SVI Middle-Low 31.15 (0.76, 1.73)0.51TRI Count High0.84 (0.51, 1.35)0.46TRI Density High0.97 (0.57, 1.68)0.93
SVI Middle-High 41.08 (0.73, 1.62)0.69
SVI High 51.67 (1.14, 2.41)7.95 × 10−3 *
Adjusted for age, BMI, FIGO stage, and race. * p-value < 0.05. 1 Patient Survival low = 630, Patient Death low = 201, Patient Survival high = 63, Patient Death high = 18. 2 Patient Survival low = 649, Patient Death low = 205, Patient Survival high = 44, Patient Death high = 14. 3 Patient Survival = 162, Patient Death = 45, 4 Patient Survival = 192, Patient Death = 55, 5 Patient Survival = 156, Patient Death = 73.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Miller, A.K.; Gordon, J.C.; Curtis, J.W.; Ajayakumar, J.; Schumacher, F.R.; Avril, S. The Geographic Context of Racial Disparities in Aggressive Endometrial Cancer Subtypes: Integrating Social and Environmental Aspects to Discern Biological Outcomes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8613. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148613

AMA Style

Miller AK, Gordon JC, Curtis JW, Ajayakumar J, Schumacher FR, Avril S. The Geographic Context of Racial Disparities in Aggressive Endometrial Cancer Subtypes: Integrating Social and Environmental Aspects to Discern Biological Outcomes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(14):8613. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148613

Chicago/Turabian Style

Miller, Anna Kimberly, Jennifer Catherine Gordon, Jacqueline W. Curtis, Jayakrishnan Ajayakumar, Fredrick R. Schumacher, and Stefanie Avril. 2022. "The Geographic Context of Racial Disparities in Aggressive Endometrial Cancer Subtypes: Integrating Social and Environmental Aspects to Discern Biological Outcomes" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 14: 8613. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148613

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop