Introduction to the study of multiple primary cancers.

National Cancer Institute monograph Pub Date : 1985-12-01
J D Boice, H H Storm, R E Curtis, O M Jensen, R A Kleinerman, H S Jensen, J T Flannery, J F Fraumeni
{"title":"Introduction to the study of multiple primary cancers.","authors":"J D Boice,&nbsp;H H Storm,&nbsp;R E Curtis,&nbsp;O M Jensen,&nbsp;R A Kleinerman,&nbsp;H S Jensen,&nbsp;J T Flannery,&nbsp;J F Fraumeni","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To lay the groundwork for subsequent chapters in this monograph of multiple primary cancers in Connecticut and Denmark, we present a description of the historical significance of previous studies, focusing on key surveys that have enhanced our understanding of the origins of multiple cancers. Case reports, hospital series, and cancer registry studies have progressively sharpened our perspective on the patterns and causes of multiple cancers. These findings in turn have generated hypotheses about host and environmental determinants of various combinations of cancer and have provided clues to the actual mechanisms of carcinogenesis. The registries of Connecticut and Denmark which began in the 1930s and 1940s, respectively, afford investigators a unique opportunity to analyze the cancer experience of well-defined populations, followed for long periods. The major contribution of this monograph is the evaluation of second cancer risks among long-term survivors of cancer, including relatively rare tumors about which little information currently exists. For patients with a particular cancer, the number of observed second cancers are tabulated over time and compared with those expected if the patients experienced the same rates prevailing in the corresponding general population. We have discussed problems in distinguishing statistical artifacts from biologically plausible associations in light of the potential biases inherent in follow-up surveys of cancer patients; for example, heightened medical surveillance and mistaken metastases could result in false indications of elevated risk. Several differences in the reporting, follow-up, and coding practices between the Connecticut and Denmark registries are described and probably account for many differences in the reported findings.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)</p>","PeriodicalId":76196,"journal":{"name":"National Cancer Institute monograph","volume":"68 ","pages":"3-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1985-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"National Cancer Institute monograph","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To lay the groundwork for subsequent chapters in this monograph of multiple primary cancers in Connecticut and Denmark, we present a description of the historical significance of previous studies, focusing on key surveys that have enhanced our understanding of the origins of multiple cancers. Case reports, hospital series, and cancer registry studies have progressively sharpened our perspective on the patterns and causes of multiple cancers. These findings in turn have generated hypotheses about host and environmental determinants of various combinations of cancer and have provided clues to the actual mechanisms of carcinogenesis. The registries of Connecticut and Denmark which began in the 1930s and 1940s, respectively, afford investigators a unique opportunity to analyze the cancer experience of well-defined populations, followed for long periods. The major contribution of this monograph is the evaluation of second cancer risks among long-term survivors of cancer, including relatively rare tumors about which little information currently exists. For patients with a particular cancer, the number of observed second cancers are tabulated over time and compared with those expected if the patients experienced the same rates prevailing in the corresponding general population. We have discussed problems in distinguishing statistical artifacts from biologically plausible associations in light of the potential biases inherent in follow-up surveys of cancer patients; for example, heightened medical surveillance and mistaken metastases could result in false indications of elevated risk. Several differences in the reporting, follow-up, and coding practices between the Connecticut and Denmark registries are described and probably account for many differences in the reported findings.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

多原发癌症研究导论。
为了为这本关于康涅狄格州和丹麦多种原发癌症的专著的后续章节奠定基础,我们对以往研究的历史意义进行了描述,重点是加强了我们对多种癌症起源的理解的关键调查。病例报告、医院系列和癌症登记研究逐渐增强了我们对多种癌症的模式和病因的看法。这些发现反过来又产生了关于各种癌症组合的宿主和环境决定因素的假设,并为致癌的实际机制提供了线索。康涅狄格和丹麦分别于20世纪30年代和40年代开始登记,这为研究人员提供了一个独特的机会,可以长期跟踪分析明确定义的人群的癌症经历。本专著的主要贡献是评估癌症长期幸存者的第二种癌症风险,包括目前知之甚少的相对罕见的肿瘤。对于患有特定癌症的患者,观察到的第二种癌症的数量随时间的推移被制成表格,并与患者在相应的一般人群中经历相同的发病率时的预期数量进行比较。鉴于癌症患者随访调查中固有的潜在偏差,我们讨论了区分统计伪像与生物学上合理的关联的问题;例如,加强医疗监测和错误的转移可能导致风险升高的错误迹象。本文描述了康涅狄格和丹麦注册中心在报告、随访和编码实践方面的一些差异,这些差异可能解释了报告结果中的许多差异。(摘要删节250字)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信