Given all the good points about cancer research in 1860 being crude and limited and so, deficient for comparison, I did find this :
1842 - ITALY
Domenico Antonio Rigoni-Stern undertook the first major statistical analysis of cancer incidence and mortality using 1760–1839 data from Verona. This showed that more women than men died from tumors, and that the most common female cancers were breast and uterine (each accounting for a third of total deaths). He found cancer death rates for both sexes were rising, and concluded that incidence of cancer increases with age, that cancer is found less in the country than in the city, and that unmarried people are more likely to contract the disease.
as well as
Lung cancer was extremely rare; now it is one of the most common cancers.
at this URL - http://canceratlas.cancer.org/history-cancer/19th-century/
In support of a number of the previous comments, this paper visits the "unqualified" use of papers like Rigoni-Stern's study of 1842 as an "anchor" for more modern thinking on a given subject, despite radical changes in the research processes, in this case, cancer -
The little death: Rigoni-Stern and the problem of sex and cancer in 20th-century biomedical research.
Approaches to the organization and conduct of cancer research changed dramatically throughout the 20th century. Despite marked differences between the epidemiological approaches of the first half of the century and molecular techniques that gained dominance in the 1980s, prominent 20th-century researchers investigating the link between sexual activity and anogenital cancers continuously invoked the same 1842 treatise by Italian surgeon Domenico Rigoni-Stern, who is said to originate the problem of establishing a causal link between sex and cancer. In this article, I investigate 20th-century references to Rigoni-Stern as a case of a broader phenomenon: scientists situating their work through narratives of venerated ancestors, or originators. By explaining shifting versions of originator narratives in light of their authors' cultural context and research practices, we can reimagine as meaningful cultural symbols the references that previous scholars have treated as specious rhetorical maneuvers. In this case, references to Rigoni-Stern provide an interpretive anchor for American scientists to construct continuity between their work and a diverse historical legacy of cancer research.
I also found the American Cancer Society's Facts & Figures for 2019 @ https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/annual-cancer-facts-and-figures/2019/cancer-facts-and-figures-2019.pdf
Questions that have to be considered are
1) proportionality - Is an increase in numbers of cancer cases proportionate to the increase in population overall, whatever the sample used?
2) improvements - Have the statistics been adjusted to reflect improved cancer detection and assessment?
3) data quality - Do the statistics reflect the changes in quality of cancer diagnostic data over time?
4) data equivalency - does data collected in 1820 have the same weight as data collected in 1920 or as in 2019? When did data collection start?
In essence has all the data been normalized and how? Have environmental considerations and daily life conditions been evaluated for the target population?
These are all important for the reasons stated in -
Incidence and Mortality Data
Mortality data from 1930 to 2016 were provided by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).1-3 Forty‐seven states and the District of Columbia met data quality requirements for reporting to the national vital statistics system in 1930, and Texas, Alaska, and Hawaii began reporting in 1933, 1959, and 1960, respectively. The methods for abstraction and age adjustment of historic mortality data are described elsewhere.3, 4 Five‐year mortality rates (2011‐2015) for Puerto Rico were previously published in volume 3 of the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries’ (NAACCR’s) Cancer in North America: 2011‐2015.5
Population‐based cancer incidence data in the United States have been collected by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI’s) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program since 1973 and by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC’s) National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) since 1995. The SEER program is the only source for historic population‐based incidence data. Long‐term (1975–2015) incidence and survival trends were based on data from the 9 oldest SEER areas (Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, Utah, and the metropolitan areas of Atlanta, Detroit, San Francisco–Oakland, and Seattle–Puget Sound), representing approximately 9% of the US population.6, 7 The lifetime probability of developing cancer and contemporary stage distribution and survival statistics were based on data from all 18 SEER registries (the SEER 9 registries plus Alaska Natives, California, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and New Jersey), covering 28% of the US population.8 The probability of developing cancer was calculated using NCI’s DevCan software (version 6.7.6).9 Some of the statistical information presented herein was adapted from data previously published in the SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975‐2015.10
The NAACCR compiles and reports incidence data from 1995 onward for registries that participate in the SEER program and/or the NPCR. These data approach 100% coverage of the US population for the most recent years and were the source for the projected new cancer cases in 2019 and cross‐sectional incidence rates by state and race/ethnicity.11, 12 Some of the incidence data presented herein were previously published in volumes 1 and 2 of Cancer in North America: 2011‐2015.13, 14
All cancer cases were classified according to the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology except childhood and adolescent cancers, which were classified according to the International Classification of Childhood Cancer (ICCC).15, 16 Causes of death were classified according to the International Classification of Diseases.17 All incidence and death rates were age standardized to the 2000 US standard population and expressed per 100,000 population, as calculated by NCI’s SEER*Stat software (version 8.3.5).18 The annual percent change in rates was quantified using NCI’s Joinpoint Regression Program (version 4.6.0).19
Whenever possible, cancer incidence rates were adjusted for delays in reporting, which occur because of a lag in case capture or data corrections. Delay‐adjustment has the largest effect on the most recent data years for cancers that are frequently diagnosed in outpatient settings (eg, melanoma, leukemia, and prostate cancer) and provides the most accurate portrayal of cancer occurrence in the most recent time period.20 For example, the leukemia incidence rate for 2015 in the 9 oldest SEER registries was 12% higher after adjusting for reporting delays (15.2 vs 13.6 per 100,000 population).10
which can be found @ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3322/caac.21551
So, without doing all the research myself, there was no immediate up-front validation for that figure. It would seem to be very difficult to make a statement like that without having established that increase as empirical fact in some specific population, and then having sufficient justification to extrapolate that to the entire human population. This doesn't seem very likely given the overall points brought up in my searches and here in this thread.
Hope this helps.