4.6 Article

Inequalities in diagnosis and registration of pediatric very rare tumors: a European study on pleuropulmonary blastoma

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 179, 期 5, 页码 749-756

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-019-03566-7

关键词

Childhood cancer; Rare tumors; Pleuropulmonary blastoma; Cancer registry

资金

  1. European Union's Health Programme (2014-2020) [2013 12 07-CUP I94G 13,000,010,002, 777,336/PARTNER]
  2. Fondazione Celeghin
  3. Enfant, cancers et sante association
  4. Deutsche Kinderkrebsstiftung, Bonn, Germany [A2007/13DKS2009.08]
  5. Foerderkreis Krebskranke Kinder Stuttgart, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Very rare tumors (VRTs) account for up to 11% of childhood cancers. Dedicated national groups and registries only exist in some European countries. Pleuropulmonary blastoma (PPB) is a very rare intrathoracic pediatric tumor with a potentially severe prognosis. Due to its rarity, it sometimes goes unrecognized. We investigated PPB diagnostic capability and possible correlations between diagnostic performance and VRT-dedicated activities. The number of cases of PPB registered between 2000 and 2014 at pediatric oncology centers in Europe was compared with the number of expected cases. Data sources included VRT registries, population-based cancer registries, and hospital registries. Data were obtained for 25 countries, grouped into 4 geographical regions. The expected cases were 111, and the observed cases were 129. The observed-to-expected ratio was 1.86 for Northern Europe, 1.33 for Southern Europe, 1.22 for Central Europe, and 0.65 for Eastern Europe. More cases than expected were registered in all countries with an official VRT registry. Conclusion: The number of cases observed is consistent with expectations, but disparities exist across Europe. Difficulties in diagnosing PPB emerged in most Eastern countries. The incidence rate of PPB may be underestimated. The creation of VRT-dedicated groups and a European Registry for VRTs could help to reduce inequalities.

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

4.6
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