4.5 Article

French brain tumor data bank: Methodology and first results on 10,000 cases

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 84, 期 2, 页码 189-199

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-007-9356-9

关键词

brain tumor; database; epidemiology; glioma; neuro-oncology; neuropathology; neurosurgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work aims to prospectively record all primary central nervous system tumors (PCNST), in France, for which histological diagnosis is available. The objectives are to create a national registry and a network to perform epidemiological studies, to implement clinical and basic research protocols, and to harmonize the healthcare of patients affected by PCNST. Following a feasibility study, including an estimate of the gross incidence of PCNST (15.8/100,000 person-years) in France, all French neuropathology and neurosurgery departments decided to participate in the program. For each patient, the neurosurgeon and the neuropathologist complete a data file containing socio-demographic, clinical, radiologic and anatomopathologic information. The Tumor Registry from Herault is authorized to compile the data files with personal identifiers. In 2.5 years, 10,093 cases of newly diagnosed PCNST have been recorded. Tumor resections were performed in 75.3%, while biopsies accounted for 24.7%. Histological diagnoses included glioma (49.6%), other neuroepithelial tumors (3.8%), meningioma (30.9%), neurinoma (8.7%), lymphoma (2.9%) and others (4.1%). Cryopreservation was reported for 2,261 PCNST specimens. Clinical and radiological aspects were also recorded. Preliminary results are encouraging and stimulating for the long-term goal of creating a National Registry and a National Network for patients affected by PCNST. To our knowledge, this is the first European databank dedicated to PCNST, with collection of clinical, radiological and histological data (including cryopreservation of the specimen). The creation of this registry and this database may have major clinical and fundamental implications.

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

4.5
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