MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.11406/rinketsu.56.366

Медицинская библиотека · [Rinsho ketsueki] The Japanese journal of clinical hematology · 2015

[Comparison of the incidence and trends of hematologic malignancies between Japan and the United States].

Chihara Dai, Ito Hidemi, Matsuo Keitaro

Сравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяОбзорПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

The incidence of a malignant disease reflects both genetics and the cumulative environmental exposures of a population. Therefore, evaluation of the incidence and trends of a disease in different populations may provide insights into its etiology and pathogenesis. To evaluate the incidence of hematologic malignancies according to specific subtypes, we used population-based registry data in Japan and the United States from 1993 to 2008. The age-adjusted incidence of hematologic malignancies in Japan was approximately one-half that in the United States but has been increasing significantly, whereas no significant change was seen in the United States (annual percent change: Japan, +2.4%; USA, +0.1%). Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) showed the largest incidence differences, with those of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, HL-nodular sclerosis, mycosis fungoides, and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma being the most remarkable. Differences in the incidence and trends for specific subtypes also showed a marked contrast across subtypes which, in turn, may provide novel and significant future insights into disease etiology.

Для цитирования: Chihara Dai, Ito Hidemi, Matsuo Keitaro. [Comparison of the incidence and trends of hematologic malignancies between Japan and the United States].. [Rinsho ketsueki] The Japanese journal of clinical hematology. 2015. DOI: 10.11406/rinketsu.56.366.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.