Cited by 26

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Nonmalignant meningioma and vestibular schwannoma incidence trends in the United States, 2004–2017

Withrow, Diana R., Devesa, Susan S., Deapen, Dennis, Petkov, Valentina, Van Dyke, Alison L., Adamo, Margaret, Armstrong, Terri S., Gilbert, Mark R., Linet, Martha S.·2021·Cancer

Abstract

Background: Given concerns about risks associated with the growing use of mobile phones over recent decades, the authors analyzed temporal trends in incidence rates of nonmalignant meningioma and vestibular schwannoma in the United States. Methods: The incidence of nonmalignant meningioma and vestibular schwannoma among adults in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 18 registries during 2004 through 2017 was evaluated according to the method of diagnosis: microscopically (MC) or radiographically confirmed (RGC). Annual percent changes (APCs) and 95% CIs were estimated using log‐linear models. Results: Overall meningioma rates (n = 108,043) increased significantly from 2004 to 2009 (APC, 5.4%; 95% CI, 4.4%‐6.4%) but subsequently rose at a slower pace through 2017 (APC, 1.0%; 95% CI, 0.6%‐1.5%). Rates for MC meningiomas changed little from 2004 to 2017 (APC, −0.3%; 95% CI, −0.7%, 0.1%) but rose rapidly for RGC meningiomas until 2009 (APC, 9.5%; 95% CI, 7.8%‐11.1%) and rose more modestly thereafter (APC, 2.3%; 95% CI, 1.5%‐3.0%). Overall vestibular schwannoma rates (n = 17,475) were stable (APC, 0.4%; 95% CI, −0.2%, 1.0%), but MC vestibular schwannoma rates decreased (APC, −1.9%; 95% CI, −2.7%, −1.1%), whereas RGC vestibular schwannoma rates rose (2006‐2017: APC, 1.7%; 95% CI, 0.5%‐3.0%). For each tumor, the trends by diagnostic method were similar for each sex and each racial/ethnic group, but RGC diagnosis was more likely in older patients and for smaller tumors. Meningioma trends and the proportion of RGC diagnoses varied notably by registry. Conclusions: Overall trends obscured differences by diagnostic method in this first large, detailed assessment, but the recent stable rates argue against an association with mobile phone use. Variation among registries requires evaluation to improve the registration of these nonmalignant tumors. Lay Summary: The etiology of most benign meningiomas and vestibular schwannomas is poorly understood, but concerns have been raised about whether mobile phone use contributes to risk of developing these tumors. Descriptive studies examining temporal trends could provide insight; however, globally, few registries collect these nonmalignant cases. In the United States, reporting benign meningiomas and vestibular schwannomas became required by law in 2004. This was the first large, systematic study to quantify and characterize incidence trends for meningioma and vestibular schwannoma according to whether the tumors were diagnosed microscopically or only radiographically. Differential trends across registries and by diagnostic method suggest that caution should be used when interpreting the patterns.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.33553

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. 10.1002/bem.10142 · DOI
  2. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-044037 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Mayo Clinic, 2019, Meningioma
  4. Mayo Clinic, 2019, Acoustic neuroma
  5. 10.1093/jnci/djp415 · DOI
  6. Miranda‐Filho A, 2017, Cancers of the brain and CNS: global patterns and trends in incidence, Neuro Oncol, 19, 270
  7. 10.1136/bmj.e1147 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1002/ijc.21255 · DOI
  9. 10.1093/ije/dyn155 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.canep.2018.07.003 · DOI
  11. 10.21873/anticanres.13176 · DOI
  12. 10.1215/S1522851705000323 · DOI
  13. 10.1186/s12885-018-4545-9 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.canep.2017.07.005 · DOI
  15. 10.4103/2152-7806.90696 · DOI
  16. 10.1002/cam4.2516 · DOI
  17. 10.1215/S1522851704001097 · DOI
  18. 10.1007/s11060-015-1827-9 · DOI
  19. 10.1038/bjc.2011.344 · DOI
  20. 10.1093/neuonc/noy143 · DOI
  21. 10.3174/ajnr.A5213 · DOI
  22. 10.1056/NEJMoa070972 · DOI
  23. 10.1093/neuonc/nox101 · DOI
  24. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program, 2020, Number of Persons by Race and Hispanic Ethnicity for SEER Participants (2010 Census Data)
  25. Fritz A, 2013, International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD‐O)
  26. Fritz A, 2000, International Classification of Diseases for Oncology
  27. Johnson C, 2007, The 2007 Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules
  28. Surveillance Research Program, 2019, SEER*Stat software. Version 8.3.6
  29. National Cancer Institute, 2020, State Cancer Profiles website. Suppression. State Cancer Profiles website
  30. National Cancer Institute, 2019, Joinpoint Regression Program. Version 4.7.0.0
  31. 10.1227/01.NEU.0000064802.46759.53 · DOI
  32. 10.3109/02841869409098430 · DOI
  33. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000194218.79519.ea · DOI
  34. 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3181f22660 · DOI
  35. Li XR, 2016, Are benign and borderline brain tumors underreported?, J Registry Manag, 43, 187
  36. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604438 · DOI
  37. ShermanRL WuXC HuangB KruchkoC.What can we learn about case ascertainment from registries with high or low incidence?Paper presented at: 2015 North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACR) Annual Conference; June 13‐18 2015;Charlotte North Carolina.
  38. 10.1016/0090-3019(87)90005-X · DOI
  39. 10.1016/B978-0-12-804280-9.00015-9 · DOI
  40. 10.1007/s11060-019-03104-3 · DOI
  41. 10.1001/archotol.131.3.241 · DOI
  42. 10.1177/0194599818770629 · DOI
  43. 10.3171/2013.12.JNS131312 · DOI
  44. 10.1136/bmj.b3016 · DOI · Paper page
  45. 10.1007/s11060-010-0367-6 · DOI
  46. 10.1016/S0090-3019(01)00349-4 · DOI
  47. 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000892 · DOI
  48. 10.1002/jmri.25623 · DOI
  49. 10.1186/1471-2342-13-40 · DOI
  50. 10.1136/emermed-2011-200088 · DOI
  51. 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.08.025 · DOI
  52. 10.1016/j.jss.2015.11.046 · DOI
  53. 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.06.127 · DOI
  54. 10.1016/j.jocn.2018.06.026 · DOI
  55. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000280469.17461.94 · DOI
  56. 10.1007/s00330-012-2636-6 · DOI
  57. 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.07.018 · DOI
  58. 10.1093/aje/kwu217 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 26

Metadata

Authors
Withrow, D. R., Devesa, S. S., Deapen, D., Petkov, V., Van Dyke, A. L., Adamo, M., Armstrong, T. S., Gilbert, M. R., & Linet, M. S.
Affiliations
  • Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics National Cancer Institute Rockville Maryland
  • Preventive Medicine Keck School of Medicine University of Southern California Los Angeles California
  • Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences National Cancer Institute Rockville Maryland
  • Center for Cancer Research National Cancer Institute Bethesda Maryland
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-06-23
Volume
127
Issue
19
Pages
3579-3590
ISSN
  • 0008-543X
  • 1097-0142
Cited by
26
References
0
Language
en
Funders
National Cancer Institute

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nonmalignant meningioma and vestibular schwannoma incidence trends in the United States, 2004–2017. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.33553
The paper
Withrow, D. R., Devesa, S. S., Deapen, D., Petkov, V., Van Dyke, A. L., Adamo, M., Armstrong, T. S., Gilbert, M. R., & Linet, M. S. (2021). Nonmalignant meningioma and vestibular schwannoma incidence trends in the United States, 2004–2017. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33553