4.8 Article

Epidemiological differences between adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and adenocarcinoma of the gastric cardia in the USA

期刊

GUT
卷 50, 期 3, 页码 368-372

出版社

BRITISH MED JOURNAL PUBL GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/gut.50.3.368

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aims: It has been suggested that gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA) is a distinct entity from oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OA). We examined several epidemiological features of GCA and OA in the USA to elucidate differences/similarities between these malignancies. Methods: Using the database of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, we examined incidence rates for temporal changes, and ethnic and age distributions, and performed birth cohort analyses for cases with morphologically and histologically confirmed OA or GCA. Results: The age adjusted incidence rates of OA rose progressively, reaching 1.8 per 100 000 (95% confidence interval 1.7-1.9) during 1987-1991 and 2.5 per 100 000 (2.3-2.6) during 1992-1996. In 1992-1996, Whites were affected five times more than Blacks, and men eight times more than women. A significant increase in incidence occurred among younger persons aged 45-65 years. Irrespective of age, OA was characterised by higher incidence rates among more recent birth cohorts: a 40% increase in incidence for each five year increase in the date of birth-a birth cohort effect. On the other hand, the incidence rates of GCA reached their highest level of 3.3 per 100 000 (3.2-3.4) in 1987-1991 and subsequently declined during 1992-1996 to 3.1 per 100 000 (3.0-3.3). Whites were affected twice more than blacks and men five times more than women. Most patients with GCA were older than 60 years with no increase among younger persons and no birth cohort effect (p=0.99). Conclusion: Several significant epidemiological differences exist between OA and GCA. These differences suggest that these two malignancies are separate entities with different risk factors.

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