Dataset Information

Might changes in diagnostic practice explain increasing incidence of brain and central nervous system tumors? A population-based study in Wales (United Kingdom) and the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Increasing incidence of central nervous system (CNS) tumors has been noted in some populations. However, the influence of changing surgical and imaging practices has not been consistently accounted for.

Methods

We evaluated average annual percentage change (AAPC) in age- and gender-stratified incidence of CNS tumors by tumor subtypes and histological confirmation in Wales, United Kingdom (1997-2015) and the United States (2004-2015) using joinpoint regression.

Findings

In Wales, the incidence of histologically confirmed CNS tumors increased more than all CNS tumors (AAPC 3.62% vs 1.63%), indicating an increasing proportion undergoing surgery. Grade II and III glioma incidence declined significantly (AAPC -3.09% and -1.85%, respectively) but remained stable for those with histological confirmation. Grade IV glioma incidence increased overall (AAPC 3.99%), more markedly for those with histological confirmation (AAPC 5.36%), suggesting reduced glioma subtype misclassification due to increased surgery. In the United States, the incidence of CNS tumors increased overall but was stable for histologically confirmed tumors (AAPC 1.86% vs 0.09%) indicating an increase in patients diagnosed without surgery. An increase in grade IV gliomas (AAPC 0.28%) and a decline in grade II gliomas (AAPC -3.41%) were accompanied by similar changes in those with histological confirmation, indicating the overall trends in glioma subtypes were unlikely to be caused by changing diagnostic and clinical management.

Conclusions

Changes in clinical practice have influenced the incidence of CNS tumors in the United Kingdom and the United States. These should be considered when evaluating trends and in epidemiological studies of putative risk factors for CNS tumors.

SUBMITTER: Poon MTC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8168824 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecent in vitro and animal studies have found the proton pump inhibitor (PPI) lansoprazole to be highly active against Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Omeprazole and pantoprazole have no activity. There is no evidence that, in clinical practice, lansoprazole can treat or prevent incident tuberculosis (TB) disease.Methods and findingsWe studied a cohort of new users of lansoprazole, omeprazole, or pantoprazole from the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink to determine whether lansoprazole users have a lower incidence of TB disease than omeprazole or pantoprazole users. Negative control outcomes of myocardial infarction (MI) and herpes zoster were also studied. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to adjust for potential confounding by a wide range of factors. We identified 527,364 lansoprazole initiators and 923,500 omeprazole or pantoprazole initiators. Lansoprazole users had a lower rate of TB disease (n = 86; 10.0 cases per 100,000 person years; 95% confidence interval 8.1-12.4) than omeprazole or pantoprazole users (n = 193; 15.3 cases per 100,000 person years; 95% confidence interval 13.3-17.7), with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (0.52-0.89). No association was found with MI (adjusted HR 1.04; 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.08) or herpes zoster (adjusted HR 1.03; 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.06). Limitations of this study are that we could not determine whether TB disease was due to reactivation of latent infection or a result of recent transmission, nor could we determine whether lansoprazole would have a beneficial effect if given to people presenting with TB disease.ConclusionsIn this study, use of the commonly prescribed and cheaply available PPI lansoprazole was associated with reduced incidence of TB disease. Given the serious problem of drug resistance and the adverse side effect profiles of many TB drugs, further investigation of lansoprazole as a potential antituberculosis agent is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundThis study describes osteopathic practise activity, scope of practice and the osteopathic patient profile in order to understand the role osteopathy plays within the United Kingdom's (UK) health system a decade after our previous survey.MethodWe used a retrospective questionnaire survey design to ask about osteopathic practice and audit patient case notes. All UK registered osteopaths were invited to participate in the survey. The survey was conducted using a web-based system. Each participating osteopath was asked about themselves, their practice and asked to randomly select and extract data from up to 8 random new patient health records during 2018. All patient related data were anonymised.ResultsThe survey response rate was 500 osteopaths (9.4% of the profession) who provided information about 395 patients and 2,215 consultations. Most osteopaths were self-employed (81.1%; 344/424 responses) working alone either exclusively or often (63.9%; 237/371) and were able to offer 48.6% of patients an appointment within 3 days (184/379). Patient ages ranged from 1 month to 96 years (mean 44.7 years, Std Dev. 21.5), of these 58.4% (227/389) were female. Infants <1 years old represented 4.8% (18/379) of patients. The majority of patients presented with musculoskeletal complaints (81.0%; 306/378). Persistent complaints (present for more than 12 weeks before appointment) were the most common (67.9%; 256/377) and 41.7% (156/374) of patients had co-existing medical conditions. The most common treatment approaches used at the first appointment were soft-tissue techniques (73.9%; 292/395), articulatory techniques (69.4%; 274/395) and high velocity low amplitude thrust (34.4%; 136/395). The mean number of treatments per patient was 7 (mode 4).ConclusionOsteopaths predominantly provide care of musculoskeletal conditions, typically in private practice. To better understand the role of osteopathy in UK health service delivery, the profession needs to do more research with patients in order to understand their needs and their expected outcomes of care, and for this to inform osteopathic practice and education.