3.9 Article

What is the real incidence of vestibular schwannoma?

期刊

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archotol.130.2.216

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To present the incidence of vestibular schwannoma (VS) in Denmark, compare the incidence with that of previous periods, and discuss the real incidence of VS. Design, Setting, and Patients: Prospective registration of all diagnosed VS in Denmark, with a population of 5.1 to 5.2 million, during the 6 years from january 1996 through December 2001. Incidence in this period was compared with that of 3 previous periods (July 1976 through June 1983 [first period], july 1983 through June 1990 [second period], and July 1990 through December 1995 [third period]). Results: In the 1996-2001 period, 542 cases of VS were diagnosed, representing a mean incidence of 17.4 VS/1 million inhabitants per year. Of these, 227 tumors underwent operation, 14 underwent irradiation, and 301 were allocated to observation (wait-and-scan policy). One hundred sixty-six tumors were intrameatal. Size of extrameatal tumors was small in 104; medium in 194; large in 68; and giant (>40 mm) in 10. Compared with incidences of 7.8 VS/1 million inhabitants per year in the first, 9.4 VS/1 million inhabitants in the second, and 12.4 VS/1 million inhabitants in the third periods, the incidence for the 1996-2001 period represents an increase to 17.4 VS/1 million inhabitants per year. The mean incidence for the entire 25.5-year period was 11.5 VS/1 million inhabitants per year. Conclusions: An estimate of a realistic mean incidence of VS depends on the observation period. Our 25.5-year registration of an entire population showed a mean incidence of 11. 5 VS/1 million inhabitants per year. However, the latest period registered represents an incidence of 17.4 VS/1 million inhabitants per year, which, combined with a probable further increase of diagnosed tumors in forthcoming years, suggests a realistic incidence of approximately 13 VS/1 million inhabitants per year.

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

3.9
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