4.7 Article

Incidence of hematologic malignancies in Europe by morphologic subtype: results of the HAEMACARE project

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 116, Issue 19, Pages 3724-3734

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2010-05-282632

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. D.G. Sanco Public Health & Consumer Protection [2004131]
  2. Compagnia di San Paolo di Torino

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Changing definitions and classifications of hematologic malignancies (HMs) complicate incidence comparisons. HAEMACARE classified HMs into groupings consistent with the latest World Health Organization classification and useful for epidemiologic and public health purposes. We present crude, age-specific and age-standardized incidence rates for European HMs according to these groupings, estimated from 66 371 lymphoid malignancies (LMs) and 21 796 myeloid malignancies (MMs) registered in 2000-2002 by 44 European cancer registries, grouped into 5 regions. Age-standardized incidence rates were 24.5 (per 100 000) for LMs and 7.55 for MMs. The commonest LMs were plasma cell neoplasms (4.62), small B-cell lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphatic leukemia (3.79), diffuse B-cell lymphoma (3.13), and Hodgkin lymphoma (2.41). The commonest MMs were acute myeloid leukemia (2.96), other myeloproliferative neoplasms (1.76), and myelodysplastic syndrome (1.24). Unknown morphology LMs were commonest in Northern Europe (7.53); unknown morphology MMs were commonest in Southern Europe (0.73). Overall incidence was lowest in Eastern Europe and lower in women than in men. For most LMs, incidence was highest in Southern Europe; for MMs incidence was highest in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Differences in diagnostic and registration criteria are an important cause of incidence variation; however, different distribution of HM risk factors also contributes. The quality of population-based HM data needs further improvement. (Blood. 2010;116(19):3724-3734)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available