Cargando…

Comparison of two methods based on cross-sectional data for correcting corpus uterine cancer incidence and probabilities

BACKGROUND: Two methods are presented for obtaining hysterectomy prevalence corrected estimates of invasive cancer incidence rates and probabilities of the corpus uterine. METHODS: The first method involves cross-sectional hysterectomy data from the Utah Hospital Discharge Data Base and mortality da...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Merrill, Ray M, Lyon, Joseph L, Wiggins, Charles
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2001
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC58835/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11686855
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-1-13
_version_ 1782120058728742912
author Merrill, Ray M
Lyon, Joseph L
Wiggins, Charles
author_facet Merrill, Ray M
Lyon, Joseph L
Wiggins, Charles
author_sort Merrill, Ray M
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Two methods are presented for obtaining hysterectomy prevalence corrected estimates of invasive cancer incidence rates and probabilities of the corpus uterine. METHODS: The first method involves cross-sectional hysterectomy data from the Utah Hospital Discharge Data Base and mortality data applied to life-table methods. The second involves hysterectomy prevalence estimates obtained directly from the Utah Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey. RESULTS: Hysterectomy prevalence estimates based on the first method are lower than those obtained from the second method through age 74, but higher in the remaining ages. Correction for hysterectomy prevalence is greatest among women ages 75–79. In this age group, the uncorrected rate is 125 (per 100,000) and the corrected rate based on the life-table method is 223 using 1995–97 data, 243 using 1992–94 data, and 228 from the survey method. The uncorrected lifetime probability of developing corpus uterine cancer is 2.6%; the corrected probability from the life-table method using 1995–97 data is 4.2%, using 1992–94 data is 4.5%; and based on prevalence data from the survey method is 4.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Both methods provide reasonable hysterectomy prevalence estimates for correcting corpus uterine cancer rates and probabilities. Because of declining trends in hysterectomy in recent decades, corrected estimates from the life-table method are less pronounced than those based on the survey method. These methods may be useful for obtaining corrected uterine cancer rates and probabilities in areas of the world that do not have sufficient years of hysterectomy data to directly compute prevalence.
format Text
id pubmed-58835
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2001
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-588352001-10-31 Comparison of two methods based on cross-sectional data for correcting corpus uterine cancer incidence and probabilities Merrill, Ray M Lyon, Joseph L Wiggins, Charles BMC Cancer Research Article BACKGROUND: Two methods are presented for obtaining hysterectomy prevalence corrected estimates of invasive cancer incidence rates and probabilities of the corpus uterine. METHODS: The first method involves cross-sectional hysterectomy data from the Utah Hospital Discharge Data Base and mortality data applied to life-table methods. The second involves hysterectomy prevalence estimates obtained directly from the Utah Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey. RESULTS: Hysterectomy prevalence estimates based on the first method are lower than those obtained from the second method through age 74, but higher in the remaining ages. Correction for hysterectomy prevalence is greatest among women ages 75–79. In this age group, the uncorrected rate is 125 (per 100,000) and the corrected rate based on the life-table method is 223 using 1995–97 data, 243 using 1992–94 data, and 228 from the survey method. The uncorrected lifetime probability of developing corpus uterine cancer is 2.6%; the corrected probability from the life-table method using 1995–97 data is 4.2%, using 1992–94 data is 4.5%; and based on prevalence data from the survey method is 4.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Both methods provide reasonable hysterectomy prevalence estimates for correcting corpus uterine cancer rates and probabilities. Because of declining trends in hysterectomy in recent decades, corrected estimates from the life-table method are less pronounced than those based on the survey method. These methods may be useful for obtaining corrected uterine cancer rates and probabilities in areas of the world that do not have sufficient years of hysterectomy data to directly compute prevalence. BioMed Central 2001-09-06 /pmc/articles/PMC58835/ /pubmed/11686855 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-1-13 Text en Copyright © 2001 Merrill et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.
spellingShingle Research Article
Merrill, Ray M
Lyon, Joseph L
Wiggins, Charles
Comparison of two methods based on cross-sectional data for correcting corpus uterine cancer incidence and probabilities
title Comparison of two methods based on cross-sectional data for correcting corpus uterine cancer incidence and probabilities
title_full Comparison of two methods based on cross-sectional data for correcting corpus uterine cancer incidence and probabilities
title_fullStr Comparison of two methods based on cross-sectional data for correcting corpus uterine cancer incidence and probabilities
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of two methods based on cross-sectional data for correcting corpus uterine cancer incidence and probabilities
title_short Comparison of two methods based on cross-sectional data for correcting corpus uterine cancer incidence and probabilities
title_sort comparison of two methods based on cross-sectional data for correcting corpus uterine cancer incidence and probabilities
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC58835/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11686855
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-1-13
work_keys_str_mv AT merrillraym comparisonoftwomethodsbasedoncrosssectionaldataforcorrectingcorpusuterinecancerincidenceandprobabilities
AT lyonjosephl comparisonoftwomethodsbasedoncrosssectionaldataforcorrectingcorpusuterinecancerincidenceandprobabilities
AT wigginscharles comparisonoftwomethodsbasedoncrosssectionaldataforcorrectingcorpusuterinecancerincidenceandprobabilities