4.6 Article

Epidemiology of multiple myeloma in 17 Latin American countries: an update

Journal

CANCER MEDICINE
Volume 7, Issue 5, Pages 2101-2108

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.1347

Keywords

incidence; mortality; multiple myeloma; trend

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute for Science and Technology in Oncogenomics and Therapeutic Innovation [FAPESP2014/50943-1, CNPq 465682/2014-6]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to describe incidence, mortality rates, and trends for multiple myeloma (MM) in Latin America (LA), contributing to better knowledge on the epidemiology of MM in this continent. Incidence data were extracted from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), for the period 1990-2007. Mortality data were obtained for 17 countries from the World Health Organization, for the period 1995-2013. Annual average percentage change (AAPC) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated for incidence and mortality. The average incidence rate of MM was higher in Cali (Colombia). For the age-group over 60 years old, rates were 14.2 and 12.8 per 100,000 inhabitants for men and women, respectively. Increasing incidence trends were verified for Cali (Colombia). Mortality rates were higher among men; most countries presented increasing trends, and the highest increments were observed in Guatemala (12.5% [95% CI: 10.6; 14.5] in men; 8.8% [95% CI: 7.8; 9.8] in women), Ecuador (5.5% [95% CI: 5.0; 6.0] in men; 3.7 [95% CI: 3.1; 4.3] in women), Paraguay (2.9% [95% CI: 2.3; 3.5] in men; 3.2% [95% CI: 2.1; 4.3] in women), and Brazil (1.4% [95% CI: 1.3; 1.5] in men; 0.9% [95% CI: 0.8; 1.0] in women). Multiple myeloma presented heterogeneous incidence patterns in Cali (Colombia), Quito (Ecuador), and Costa Rica. Increasing mortality trends were verified for most Latin American countries and could be related to limited access to diagnosis and new therapies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available