• 9/15/2005
  • New Jersey
  • Bob Groves
  • NorthJersey.com

Income and race appear to make a difference in New Jersey when it comes to surviving cancer, according to the state’s first county-by-county tally of the disease.

Those factors appear to affect access to health care – particularly early diagnosis – which is key in reducing mortality, state health officials said Wednesday in presenting statistical “snapshots” of all 21 counties in the state. Those profiles were based on 1996-2000 state and federal data.

In Bergen County – which is 78 percent white and has a median household income of $65,241 – the incidence for all cancers among men was 633.3 per 100,000, compared with New Jersey’s overall rate of 628.7. But the mortality rate for Bergen County men with cancer was 241.2, slightly less than the 261.1 statewide average rate for men.

Women in Bergen County had a 456.8 incidence rate, compared with 453.7 for the state, and a 173.2 mortality rate, compared with 181.6 for the state.

By comparison, Essex County – which is 45 percent white and has a median household income of $44,944 – had more cases and deaths among men than the state average. Women in the county had a lower incidence than the statewide average, but they had a 188.1 mortality rate, compared with the 181.6 statewide rate for women. Essex also had the highest prostate cancer mortality rate and one of the highest oral cancer death rates.

“We have to help people understand the benefits of cancer screening and improve their access to screening,” Dr. Eddy Bresnitz, the state epidemiologist, said Wednesday at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in Newark.

“Screening leads to fewer deaths and increased length of survival,” said Bresnitz, who called on communities to “reduce the disparity” in cancer outcomes between whites and minorities.

The incidence and mortality rates for men and women in Passaic County – which is 62 percent white, and has a $56,0564 median household income – are lower than the state rates. The same holds true for Morris County, which is 87 percent white, with median household income of $77,340.

Cancer incidence in Hudson County for men and women is lower than the state average, and women in the county die at a lower rate than in the state overall. Men in Hudson County, however, have a higher death rate from cancer.

“The life expectancy of minorities in this country is significantly shorter than that for whites,” state Health Commissioner Fred M. Jacobs said during a news conference at UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School.

“We live in the richest state in the country,” said Jacobs. He called the disparities “outrageous,” adding, “We can and will do better.”

Some national data show that African-Americans with the same education and economic status as whites “have worse access and worse outcomes for a number of health issues,” Jacobs said. He could not explain the reason for this. However, he said the county cancer reports will help officials provide education, evaluation and treatment services where they are needed.

The state has set a goal “to reduce cancer for all residents,” Jacobs said. Special attention must be given to colorectal cancer, which kills African-Americans at a far higher rate than it does whites, Bresnitz said. It also is the third most common cancer in New Jersey and the second most common cause of cancer deaths in the state, he said.

Tom Duffy, executive vice president of the American Cancer Society of New Jersey, agreed that socioeconomic status appeared to be a factor in cancer care and outcomes.

“I think people of better means have better access to health care,” Duffy said in a phone interview after the news conference.

“Poverty is a risk factor for cancer,” Duffy said. “I think in many ways the statistics we’re looking at right now bear that out.” He cautioned, however, that the conclusions are only “anecdotally correct.”

“We don’t want to jump ahead of ourselves,” he said.
“What we have in front of us is a first attempt, a snapshot of time.”

He added that there are other factors that contribute to cancer rates and outcomes. “Evaluation [of the data] allows us to begin addressing that in a very tangible way,” he said.