4.7 Article

Global patterns of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2020

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 151, 期 9, 页码 1474-1481

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.34163

关键词

cancer registries; epidemiology; lymphoma; neoplasms; non-Hodgkin

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Global patterns of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in 2020 were evaluated using the GLOBOCAN 2020 database. The study found that Eastern Asia, Northern America, and South-Central Asia had the highest number of NHL cases. Incidence rates were higher in men than in women, with the highest rates in Australia, New Zealand, Northern America, Northern Europe, and Western Europe. The highest mortality rates were found in regions in Africa, Western Asia, and Oceania.
We evaluated the global patterns of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in 2020 using the estimates of NHL incidence and mortality in 185 countries that are part of the GLOBOCAN 2020 database, developed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). As well as new cases and deaths of NHL, corresponding age-standardized (world) rates (ASR) of incidence and mortality per 100 000 person-years were derived by country and world region. In 2020, an estimated 544 000 new cases of NHL were diagnosed worldwide, and approximately 260 000 people died from the disease. Eastern Asia accounted for a quarter (24.9%) of all cases, followed by Northern America (15.1%) and South-Central Asia (9.7%). Incidence rates were higher in men than in women, with similar geographical patterns. While the incidence rates were highest in Australia and New Zealand, Northern America, Northern Europe and Western Europe (>10/100 000 for both sexes combined), the highest mortality rates (>3/100 000) were found in regions in Africa, Western Asia and Oceania. The large variations and the disproportionately higher mortality in low- and middle-income countries can be related to the underlying prevalence and distribution of risk factors, and to the level of access to diagnostic and treatment facilities.

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

4.7
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