4.8 Article

Changing international trends in mortality rates for liver, biliary and pancreatic tumours

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
卷 37, 期 6, 页码 806-813

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0168-8278(02)00297-0

关键词

primary liver; biliary; pancreatic tumor; age-standardized mortality rate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aims: The age-standardized mortality rate for hepatocellular carcinoma is increasing in several countries. However, in England and Wales we previously reported an increase in mortality rates from intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Trends in cholangiocarcinoma in most other industrialized countries are unknown. To further study trends in hepatobiliary and pancreatic tumours, we analysed mortality data from the United States, Japan, Australia and Europe. Methods: Age-standardized mortality rates for men and women for subcategories of liver tumours, tumours of the gall bladder and extrahepatic biliary tree and pancreas from 1979 to 1998 were obtained from the World Health Organization mortality database. Results: We confirmed previously reported increases in hepatocellular carcinoma, but also found increases in other countries, particularly Australia (3-year average rise from 1.20 to 2.27, men). Mortality for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma increased in men in all countries studied, with the largest increases in Australia (from 0.10 to 0.70) and England and Wales (from 0.20 to 0.83). Conclusions: We present a hitherto unreported rise in age-standardized mortality rates from intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma across four continents. The cause remains uncertain. An impact on the observed trends of improved diagnostic techniques and death certificate misclassification cannot be completely ruled out. Future research should include epidemiological studies to examine possible case-clustering and investigation of potential aetiological and host factors. (C) 2002 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.8
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