METHODS
A questionnaire with 40-item consisting of 18 questions regarding demographic characteristics, the
behavior of lifestyle and health issues, 12 questions regarding health status, and 10 questions about the
health of nearby was applied by interviewers using face to face method to 9547 participants.
RESULTS
Out of 9547 participants, 122 of them (1.3%) was cancer patients, while 9425 (98.7%) were not diagnosed
with cancer. Average time since cancer diagnosis was 6.4±4.9 years. Out of 122 people that had
cancer, 24 people (19.7%) did not receive any cancer treatment. The most common incident sites of
cancer were breast, prostate and lung. There was a significant relation between cancer and smoking,
alcohol consumption, having a chronic disease, having a relative died from cancer and ever being have
a cancer scan.
CONCLUSION
Concentrating in regions that need more service and risky areas and increasing cancer training and
screening activities should be done. In the light of this research, similar studies in the future will help to
track cancer status and varying service needs.
Keywords: Cancer; prevalence; risk factor; mediterranean; Turkey
Prevalence estimates for 2012 indicate that there
were 8.7 million people (older than 15 years) alive who
had had cancer diagnosed in the previous year, 22.0
million with a diagnosis in the previous three years and
32.6 million with a diagnosis in the previous five years.
The worldwide estimate for the number of cancers diagnosed
in childhood (ages 0?14 years) in 2012 is 165
000 (95 000 in boys and 70 000 in girls).[
In Turkey, cancer incidence is calculated as 180-200
in 100.000 according to existing data, and this figure
is half that of the EU States. An important reason for
such a difference in incidence between Turkey and the
European Union Member States is the age distribution
of the population. Cancer is essentially a middle-elder
age disease and 90% of the newly diagnosed individuals
with cancer are 45 years old or older. In Turkey, in
accordance with 2000 data, individuals 45 years old or
older make up 20.6% of the population, while the same
year in France individuals 45 years old or older make
up 39.2% of the population.[
With a population of seventy-eight million and an
incidence of 200 in 100.000, every year, 156.000 new
cancer cases are expected in Turkey.[
Cancer prevention in Turkey is managed under certain
programmes related to different subjects. These
programmes are: Tobacco Control Programme, Alcohol
Control Programme, Nutritional Health and
Physical Activity Program, Reduction of Excessive Salt
Consumption Program, Strategic Asbestos Control
Program and Radon Mapping and Control Program.
These are all nationwide programs. Also, there are ongoing
studies, registry and control programs related to
region-specific cancer problems within certain areas.[
Population-based screening and public training
programs about breast, cervix and colorectal cancers
are being organized within these centres. Public service
related to cancer early diagnosis, screening and treatment
is presented to the public free of charge.[
Breast and cervical cancer screening have begun
within the framework of a national programme, and
efforts to expand them to 81 provinces have been successful.
At least one Cancer Early Diagnosis, Screening
and Training Centre (KETEM) has been opened
in each particular city in Turkey. The total number of
these centres has now reached 134.[
In this context, surveying and analysis studies
should be performed to reach reliable data for use in
combating cancer, determine the priority of struggle,
understand cancer burden, estimate new cases, see
cancer prevalence and create cancer patient profile.
This study was carried out in line with these goals.
The total population over the age of 18 across the province were identified as 1.217.563. In the Epi Info program, 95% confidence level, 1% confidence limit and as we wanted to reach maximum people, 50% expected frequency was calculated and the survey was planned to apply to 9547 people.
The distribution of participants was clustered according
to the population density of the districts (Table
After training the interviewers about the survey, 30 people pre-applicated the questionnaire and necessary corrections were made.
By 18 questions regarding demographic characteristics, behavior of lifestyle and health issues; 12 questions regarding health status; and 10 questions about the health of nearby, 40-item questionnaire was applied by interviewers with face to face method to 9547 participants after they accepted informed consent. This study was carried out in all 13 regions of Mersin province between July-September 2015.
Data were evaluated using SPSS 19.0 software packages and Pearson Chi-Square tests were used. P<0.05 was considered significant.
This research was started after obtaining the necessary approvals from all government agencies. Mersin Public Health Directorate granted Ethical approval to carry out the study within its facilities (Ethical Application Ref: 15622316/604.01.02).
One hundred and twenty-two people (1.3%) were
cancer patients, while 9425 (98,7%) were not diagnosed
with cancer. Average time since cancer diagnosis
was 6.4±4.9 years (min: 1 month, max: 32
years ago). Sixty-five patients (53.3%) was diagnosed
in State Hospital, 41 patients (33.6%) in University
Hospital, 15 people (12.3%) in a private hospital, and
one patient (0.8%) received the diagnosis in a military
hospital. Out of these 122 patients, 49 (40.2%) patients received chemotherapy, 10 (8.2%) patients received
radiation therapy, 22 (18.0%) patients underwent
surgical treatment. Twenty-four patients (19,7%) did
not receive any treatment. None of the cancer patients
used alternative treatment. Most cancer patients were
48-57 years old. Characteristics of cancer patients are
shown in Table
Thirty-seven males and 85 females were diagnosed
with cancer. Significantly different, females had more
cancer than males (p<0.001). Thirty-seven of cancer
patients were smoking, 63 patients were not and 22
patients have given up smoking. Smokers had more
cancer than non-smokers (p=0.002), and patients
who have given up smoking had even more cancer
than smokers (p<0.001) and non-smokers (p<0.001).
While 38 of cancer patients were alcohol consumers, 84 patients were not. Alcohol consumers had significantly
more cancer than those who did not consume
(p=0.001). While 52 of cancer patients had a chronic
disease, 70 did not have. Significantly different, patients
who had chronic diseases had more cancer than
patients who did not have (p<0.001). Seventeen of cancer
patients had a relative with cancer as 105 patients
did not have. There was no significant difference between
these two groups. While 47 of cancer patients
had a relative died from cancer, 75 did not have. Significantly
different, patients who had a relative died from
cancer had more cancer than patients who did not have
(p=0.002). Ninety-six of cancer patients had a cancer scan while 25 had not. Significantly different, patients
who had cancer scans had more cancer than patients
who did not have (p<0.001) (Table
Cancer cases by type of cancer were also coherent
with the literature. We found the most three common
incident sites of cancer to be 1. Breast, 2. Prostate and
3. Lung. GLOBOCAN shows 1. Lung 2. Breast 3. Colorectum
4. Prostate as the most seen types of cancer
in the world. When we look at Europe, the breast is
the number one cancer type of Europe, as colorectum
comes second, prostate comes third and lung comes
fourth.[
In our study, 40.2% of cancer patients received chemotherapy,
18.0% underwent surgical treatment, and
8.2% received radiation therapy. In another field study
in Çorum/Turkey, 53.4% received surgery, 17.1% radiation
therapy and 0.4% radiation therapy.[
Based on extensive reviews of research studies,
there is a strong scientific consensus of an association
between alcohol drinking and several types of cancer.
[
Smoking causes cancer of the oral cavity, larynx,
esophagus, lung and pancreas. Moreover, daily cigar
smokers, particularly patients who inhale, are at increased
risk for developing heart disease and other
types of lung disease. The more smoke, the greater the
risk of disease is.[
About 5 to 10 percent of cancers arises from harmful
mutations that are inherited from a person's parents.
In families with an inherited cancer-causing mutation,
multiple family members will often develop the same
type of cancer. These cancers are called "familial" cancers.[
Population-based screening has been shown to be
effective in reducing cancer-specific mortality, complementing
early symptomatic detection of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers.[
Strengths of This Study
Limitations of This Study
Reaching close to 10.000 people, this study contributes
a lot to current literature about cancer prevalence and
risk factors in this region. The studies in this region are
a few and limited in sample size.
This study has some limitations. Firstly, the age group
of the participants was not equally distributed. The reason
for this was that some of the previously conducted
surveys in the region were fraudulent and targeted to
older people. Therefore, some seniors were reluctant to Castellparticipate
in this study. Secondly, the time window of
risk factors could not be specified clearly as there were
some lacking questions in the survey.
Peer-review: Externally peer-reviewed.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article. Ethics Committee Approval: This research was started after obtaining the necessary approvals from all government agencies. Mersin Public Health Directorate granted Ethical approval to carry out the study within its facilities (Ethical Application Ref: 15622316/604.01.02).
Financial Support: This work was supported by Çukurova Development Agency (Contract no. Tr:6215/dfd/0017).
Authorship contributions: Concept - B.K., T.N.; Design - T.N.; Supervision - M.A., T.N.; Funding - None.; Materials - T.N.; Data collection and/or processing - B.K., T.N.; Data analysis and/or interpretation - B.K.; Literature search - B.K., M.A.; Writing - B.K., M.A.; Critical review - M.A.