4.6 Article

Advances in diagnostic practices affect thyroid cancer incidence in France

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 150, 期 2, 页码 133-139

出版社

BIO SCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/eje.0.1500133

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To analyse trends in diagnostic practices of thyroid diseases and to relate them to the increase in thyroid cancer incidence in France over time. Design: From 1980 to 2000, a French retrospective multicentric (three endocrinology and three nuclear medicine centres) study of thyroid diseases was conducted on 20 consecutive unselected patients' records, sampled every 5 years in each centre. Methods: Characteristics of the population and diagnosis procedures (thyroid ultrasonography (US), radionuclide scan, cytology and hormonal measurements) were described over time. Changing trends in operated patients and in cancer prevalence were analysed as well as the impact of practices on cancer incidence. Results: The study included 471 patients (82% female, mean age 46.7, range 9-84 years), referred for nodular thyroid diseases (66.7%) or thyroid dysfunctions (33.3%). A significant increase in US (3 to 84.8%) and cytological practices (4.5 to 23%), and a decrease (89.4 to 49.6%) in radionuclide scan procedures were observed over time. Although the proportion of patients undergoing surgery remained constant (24.8%), the prevalence of cancer increased among operated patients from 12.5 to 37% (P = 0.006). In a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on the clinical characteristics of patients, only the cytological practice, regardless of its results, was significantly associated with the occurrence of cancer: relative risk (RR) = 4.4 (95% confidence interval (Cl): 1.1 - 16; P = 0.04). Conclusions: From 1980 to 2000, a major evolution in clinical practices has led to the increase in thyroid cancer reported in France. Such changes in medical, as well as in surgical and pathological, practices must be taken into account in incidence measurement.

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