4.5 Article

Age-Period-Cohort Analysis of Thyroid Cancer Incidence in Korea

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
卷 47, 期 3, 页码 362-369

出版社

KOREAN CANCER ASSOCIATION
DOI: 10.4143/crt.2014.110

关键词

Thyroid; Neoplasms; Incidence; Time trends; Korea

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Center, Republic of Korea [1310220]
  2. Korea Health Promotion Institute [1310220-2] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose South Korea has the highest incidence rate of thyroid cancer in the world, and the incidence rate continues to increase. The aim of this study was to determine the age-period-cohort effects on the incidence of thyroid cancer in Korea. Materials and Methods Using the Korean National Cancer registry database, age-standardized incidence rates and annual percent changes (APCs) in thyroid cancer according to sex and histologic type were analyzed between 1997 and 2011. Age-period-cohort models were applied using an intrinsic estimator method according to sex. Results In both men and women, the incidence of thyroid cancer showed a sharp increase from 1997 through 2011. Among the histologic types, papillary carcinoma showed the greatest increase, with APCs of 25.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.7% to 27.5%) in men and 23.7% (95% CI, 21.9% to 25.5%) in women, whereas anaplastic carcinoma did not show a significant increase in either sex. An increase in overall thyroid cancer incidence over time was observed in all birth cohorts. An age-period-cohort model indicated a steeply increasing period effect, which increased prominently from 1997 to 2011 in both men and women. The age effect showed an inverted U-shaped trend. The cohort effect tended to show a slight increase or remain constant from 1952 to 1977, followed by a decrease. Conclusion The period effect can explain the sharp increase in thyroid cancer incidence, strongly suggesting the role of thyroid screening.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据