Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Spatial analysis of diabetes prevalence and diabetes-related cancer mortality in the united states

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: Cancer and diabetes are the second and eighth leading causes of death in the United States (US), respectively. There are associations between diabetes and development of certain cancers yet a spatial analysis of their association has not been performed. This study examined the relationship between county-level diabetes prevalence and diabetes-associated cancer mortality in the US to identify disease hotspots and socioeconomic disparities. Methods: In this cross-sectional study of 3,108 counties in the continental US, we characterized county-level diabetes prevalence and diabetes-associated cancer mortality rates by conducting hotspot analyses using the Getis–Ord G* statistic to identify county clusters with similar high/low values of diabetes prevalence and cancer mortality rates. We compared demographic and socioeconomic factors among hotspot and coldspot overlaps. Results: Hotspots of diabetes prevalence were in the Mississippi Delta, Appalachian Kentucky and West Virginia, southeastern Virginia, southern Texas, New Mexico, and tribal areas of Arizona and South Dakota. Hotspots for diabetes-associated cancer mortality were in the Mississippi Delta, Appalachian Kentucky, south central Texas, and South Dakota tribal areas. Hot–hot overlaps occupied the Mississippi Delta, Appalachian Kentucky, southern Texas, and South Dakota tribal areas. Compared to cold–cold overlaps, hot–hot cluster counties were more rural with higher percentages of poorly educated, impoverished, and unemployed citizens. Racial economic segregation data suggest that hot–hot clusters are significantly disadvantaged. Conclusions: Diabetes incidence and diabetes-associated cancer mortality share geographic, demographic, and socioeconomic risk factors. Providers should promote eligible cancer screenings and control of other risk factors among patients with diabetes to reduce mortality.

Original languageEnglish
Article number10
Number of pages10
JournalCancer Causes and Control
Volume37
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2026

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2025.

Funding

This work was supported by the University of Kentucky’s Appalachian Career Training in Oncology (ACTION) Program (NCI R25CA221765) and the Markey Cancer Center’s Cancer Center Support Grant (NCI P30CA17755). Lauren Hudson Rose was supported by the Diabetes and Obesity Summer Research Fellows Program at the University of Kentucky Diabetes and Obesity Research Priority Area and Barnstable Brown Diabetes Center. Mary E. Lacy was supported by the University of Kentucky Diabetes and Obesity Research Priority Area. Role of Funder: The National Cancer Institute had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

FundersFunder number
University of Kentucky
University of Kentucky Diabetes and Obesity Research Priority Area and Barnstable Brown Diabetes Center
National Childhood Cancer Registry – National Cancer InstituteR25CA221765
University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center’s Cancer Center Support Grant National Cancer InstituteP30CA17755

    UN SDGs

    This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

    1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
      SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

    Keywords

    • Cancer mortality
    • Diabetes
    • Diabetes-related cancer
    • Social determinants of health
    • Spatial analysis

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Oncology
    • Cancer Research

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Spatial analysis of diabetes prevalence and diabetes-related cancer mortality in the united states'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this