4.6 Review

A systematic review of worldwide incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 166, 期 5, 页码 1069-1080

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2012.10830.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is the most common cancer affecting white-skinned individuals and the incidence is increasing worldwide. Objectives This systematic review brings together 75 studies conducted over the past half century to look at geographical variations and trends worldwide in NMSC, and specifically incidence data are compared with recent U. K. cancer registry data. Methods Following the development of a comprehensive search strategy, an assessment tool was adapted to look at the methodological quality of the eligible studies. Results Most of the studies focused on white populations in Europe, the U. S. A. and Australia; however, limited data were available for other skin types in regions such as Africa. Worldwide the incidence for NMSC varies widely with the highest rates in Australia [> 1000/100 000 person-years for basal cell carcinoma (BCC)] and the lowest rates in parts of Africa (< 1/100 000 person-years for BCC). The average incidence rates in England were 76.21/100 000 person-years and 22.65/100 000 person-years for BCC and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), respectively, with highest rates in the South-West of England (121.29/100 000 person-years for BCC and 33.02/100 000 person-years for SCC) and lowest rates by far in London (0.24/100 000 person-years for BCC and 14.98/100 000 person-years for SCC). The incidence rates in the U. K. appear to be increasing at a greater rate when compared with the rest of Europe. Conclusions NMSC is an increasing problem for health care services worldwide. This review highlights a requirement for prevention studies in this area and the issues surrounding incomplete NMSC registration. Registration standards of NMSC should be improved to the level of other invasive disease.

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