Compared to their baby boomer parents, Gen X had greater cancer rates.

Baby boomers are being surpassed by Generation X, but not in a positive way.

Researchers report June 10 in JAMA Network Open that the Gen X generation (born 1965–1980) is developing cancer more frequently per capita than their parents’ and grandparents’ generations.

As Gen Xers approach the ages at which tumors typically manifest, the prognosis is not good, according to Philip Rosenberg, a biostatistician at the U.S. In Rockville, Maryland, is the National Cancer Institute. Rosenberg and his NCI colleague Adalberto Miranda-Filho caution that millennials (those born between 1981 and 1996) and younger generations may also see an increased incidence of cancer if the trend persists.

Rosenberg, a self-described boomer, set out to determine whether his generation, which was born between 1946 and 1964, fared any better or worse than the Greatest (1908–1927) and Silent (1928–1945) generations of his parents. And if his Gen Z (1997–2012) and millennial (1981–1996) offspring would fare even better.

“One hopes for improvements in health metrics, life expectancy, and cancer rates,” he states. “You want to see progress on all of that.”

Data was collected from 3.8 million individuals who were diagnosed with invasive cancer by Rosenberg and Miranda-Filho. The researchers estimated the rate of Gen X at age 60 and studied generational disparities in cancer diagnoses at various body regions. The researchers were able to identify patterns for Gen X as they are at an age where cancer can occur. The researchers were unable to provide estimates for the millennial generation because they are not yet old enough to have many cancers.

Rosenberg was not pleased with the forecast. In addition to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and leukemia, Gen X women were predicted to have higher rates of thyroid, kidney, rectal, uterine, colon, pancreatic, and ovarian cancers than baby boomers. Men of Generation X have predicted increases in malignancies of the thyroid, kidney, rectal, colon, and prostate. The study examines the frequency of new cancer diagnoses rather than the number of cancer-related deaths.

There were also some positive aspects. When compared to baby boomers, Gen X women experienced a decline in lung and cervical cancer, while Gen X males experienced a decrease in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, lung, liver, and gallbladder cancers.

However, the researchers discovered that when all the cancers were combined, the situation became dire since the “gaining cancers numerically overtook falling cancers.”

Reversal of events
In the US, Gen Xers are receiving more cancer diagnoses than previous generations. Researchers forecasted trends in overall cancer rates at age 60 by lumping 20 top cancers for women (yellow lines) and 18 leading cancers for men (blue lines). The graphs show cancer diagnoses per person-year (p-y), or how frequently you would expect a cancer diagnosis if you watched 100,000 people for a year. (Since the oldest Gen Xers are just approaching 60, shaded areas indicate possible ranges where the incidence rate could land, although the solid line is the most likely projection.).

Asian and Pacific Islander males are the exception as cancer cases among men fell between the Greatest and Silent Generations before rising once more during the Boomers and continuing to grow during Gen X. Women have historically had lower cancer rates than males, but these distinctions have mostly disappeared—with the exception of non-Hispanic Black people, where men continue to have higher cancer rates. This trend persisted into the Gen X era. See how the incidence of cancer has changed for four racial or ethnic groups over the years by scrolling through.

With a 35 percent increase, Hispanic women saw one of the largest rises. The number of new cancer diagnoses per 100,000 person-years, or the rate you would predict if you followed 100,000 people for a year, increased from 598 in the Silent and Boomer generations (from 1936 through 1960) to 806 in the Gen X age.

Except for Asian and Pacific Islander men, whose cancer rates decreased from 562 cancers diagnosed per 100,000 person-years at age 60 in the Silent and boomer generation to 519 cancers per 100,000 person-years for Gen Xers, a decrease of 7.7 percent, all racial and ethnic groups included in the study saw increases in cancer diagnoses. The highest cumulative cancer rate in Generation X was seen in non-Hispanic Black men (15,561 incidences per 100,000 person-years). Compared to the 1,399 cancer diagnoses per 100,000 person-years in the baby boomer and silent generations, this is an increase of almost 12%.

Cancer epidemiologist Ahmedin Jemal of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta notes that there had previously been increases in several malignancies, including colorectal cancers in those under 50 and upticks in kidney and thyroid cancers (SN: 8/14/23). Furthermore, the leap does not stop in the US. Similar increases have been recorded by other high-income nations.

Gen Xers’ increased cancer rates “are like a yellow flag,” according to Rosenberg. He hopes that other academics will utilize the data to determine what is causing such increases and come up with solutions to buck the trends. “These numbers suggest there are some unfavorable trajectories.”

As members of Generation X approach middle age, data on their relationship with cancer is only starting to be collected, according to Corinne Joshu, a cancer epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

According to Joshu, some of the rise might be attributable to improved screening and early detection. There are worries about overdiagnosing prostate cancers because while some of them can be nasty, many of them grow slowly enough to not cause health issues. “Sometimes that’s hard to say how much of this is related to changes in detection and changes in just clinical awareness to look for something, versus a true increase,” she says.

A lot of the malignancies that are becoming more common in Gen Xers are caused by lifestyle choices like eating too much red meat, being obese, and not exercising. Joshu asserts that it is not simple to change that. “In our society, making healthy choices is not always simple.”

According to her and Jemal, multifaceted policy measures that outlawed smoking indoors and raised the price of cigarettes to a point where people were less likely to start smoking as youths were the primary causes of the decline in lung cancer cases. Cervical cancer has decreased thanks in large part to vaccinations against the human papillomavirus (HPV) and other public health initiatives (SN: 4/28/17).

However, Joshu notes that it might be simpler to remove something unhealthy than to make healthy lifestyle choices available and inexpensive for everyone. “We don’t think eating healthier is easier or more affordable,” the woman claims. “I believe we could make a difference in that, but it will require a collective effort from society and people to agree that this is a problem that needs to be addressed.'” Presumably, doing so will reduce the incidence of cancer as well as other leading causes of death.