4.7 Article

Skin cancer screening participation and impact on melanoma incidence in Germany - an observational study on incidence trends in regions with and without population-based screening

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 106, 期 5, 页码 970-974

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.22

关键词

skin neoplasms; mass screening; incidence; melanoma; epidemiologic studies

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The SCREEN (Skin Cancer Research to provide Evidence for Effectiveness of Screening in Northern Germany) project involved population-wide skin cancer screening with whole-body examination by general physicians and dermatologists. It was conducted in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein (July 2003-June 2004), but not in the German state of Saarland. METHODS: The population-based registries of Schleswig-Holstein and Saarland provided data on melanoma incidence before, during, and after SCREEN to assess the association of skin cancer screening with incidence. RESULTS: Approximately 19% of the Schleswig-Holstein population participated in SCREEN (women: 27%, men: 10%). A total of 52% of all melanomas diagnosed during SCREEN in Schleswig-Holstein were detected as part of the project. Melanoma incidence increased during SCREEN (invasive melanoma in women: +8.9 per 100 000 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 6.1; 11.7); men: +4.0 per 100 000 (95% CI: 1.6; 6.4)) and decreased afterwards (women: -10.6 per 100 000 (95% CI: -13.3; -7.9); men: -4.1 per 100 000 (95% CI: -6.5; -1.7)). Similar changes were not observed in Saarland that had no such project. The differences between the two states were greatest among women, the group with the greater SCREEN participation. CONCLUSION: The SCREEN project had a substantial impact on melanoma incidence. This is consistent with the impact of effective screening for other cancers. British Journal of Cancer (2012) 106, 970-974. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.22 www.bjcancer.com Published online 31 January 2012 (C) 2012 Cancer Research UK

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