| Title |
The effect of multiple primary rules on cancer incidence rates and trends
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Causes & Control, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10552-016-0714-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hannah K. Weir, Christopher J. Johnson, Kevin C. Ward, Michel P. Coleman |
| Abstract |
An examination of multiple primary cancers can provide insight into the etiologic role of genes, the environment, and prior cancer treatment on a cancer patient's risk of developing a subsequent cancer. Different rules for registering multiple primary cancers (MP) are used by cancer registries throughout the world making data comparisons difficult. We evaluated the effect of SEER and IARC/IACR rules on cancer incidence rates and trends using data from the SEER Program. We estimated age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) and trends (1975-2011) for the top 26 cancer categories using joinpoint regression analysis. ASIRs were higher using SEER compared to IARC/IACR rules for all cancers combined (3 %) and, in rank order, melanoma (9 %), female breast (7 %), urinary bladder (6 %), colon (4 %), kidney and renal pelvis (4 %), oral cavity and pharynx (3 %), lung and bronchus (2 %), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (2 %). ASIR differences were largest for patients aged 65+ years. Trends were similar using both MP rules with the exception of cancers of the urinary bladder, and kidney and renal pelvis. The choice of multiple primary coding rules effects incidence rates and trends. Compared to SEER MP coding rules, IARC/IACR rules are less complex, have not changed over time, and report fewer multiple primary cancers, particularly cancers that occur in paired organs, at the same anatomic site and with the same or related histologic type. Cancer registries collecting incidence data using SEER rules may want to consider including incidence rates and trends using IARC/IACR rules to facilitate international data comparisons. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 50% |
| Colombia | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 15 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 16 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 February 2016.
All research outputs
#3,046,450
of 25,656,290 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Causes & Control
#336
of 2,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,153
of 407,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Causes & Control
#2
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,656,290 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 407,244 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.