The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Nonmalignant meningioma and vestibular schwannoma incidence trends in the United States, 2004–2017
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“The latter is especially applicable to the collection of non-malignant brain tu- mours, meningioma and other benign CNS tumours (Dolecek et al., 2015; Withrow et al., 2021).”
From The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies - Part I: Most researched outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as Withrow et al., 2021
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
- 10.1002/bem.10142 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-044037 · DOI · Paper page
- Mayo Clinic, 2019, Meningioma
- Mayo Clinic, 2019, Acoustic neuroma
- 10.1093/jnci/djp415 · DOI
- Miranda‐Filho A, 2017, Cancers of the brain and CNS: global patterns and trends in incidence, Neuro Oncol, 19, 270
- 10.1136/bmj.e1147 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/ijc.21255 · DOI
- 10.1093/ije/dyn155 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.canep.2018.07.003 · DOI
- 10.21873/anticanres.13176 · DOI
- 10.1215/S1522851705000323 · DOI
- 10.1186/s12885-018-4545-9 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.canep.2017.07.005 · DOI
- 10.4103/2152-7806.90696 · DOI
- 10.1002/cam4.2516 · DOI
- 10.1215/S1522851704001097 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11060-015-1827-9 · DOI
- 10.1038/bjc.2011.344 · DOI
- 10.1093/neuonc/noy143 · DOI
- 10.3174/ajnr.A5213 · DOI
- 10.1056/NEJMoa070972 · DOI
- 10.1093/neuonc/nox101 · DOI
- Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program, 2020, Number of Persons by Race and Hispanic Ethnicity for SEER Participants (2010 Census Data)
- Fritz A, 2013, International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD‐O)
- Fritz A, 2000, International Classification of Diseases for Oncology
- Johnson C, 2007, The 2007 Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules
- Surveillance Research Program, 2019, SEER*Stat software. Version 8.3.6
- National Cancer Institute, 2020, State Cancer Profiles website. Suppression. State Cancer Profiles website
- National Cancer Institute, 2019, Joinpoint Regression Program. Version 4.7.0.0
- 10.1227/01.NEU.0000064802.46759.53 · DOI
- 10.3109/02841869409098430 · DOI
- 10.1212/01.wnl.0000194218.79519.ea · DOI
- 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3181f22660 · DOI
- Li XR, 2016, Are benign and borderline brain tumors underreported?, J Registry Manag, 43, 187
- 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604438 · DOI
- 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.
- 10.1016/0090-3019(87)90005-X · DOI
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-804280-9.00015-9 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11060-019-03104-3 · DOI
- 10.1001/archotol.131.3.241 · DOI
- 10.1177/0194599818770629 · DOI
- 10.3171/2013.12.JNS131312 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.b3016 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s11060-010-0367-6 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0090-3019(01)00349-4 · DOI
- 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000892 · DOI
- 10.1002/jmri.25623 · DOI
- 10.1186/1471-2342-13-40 · DOI
- 10.1136/emermed-2011-200088 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.08.025 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jss.2015.11.046 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.06.127 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jocn.2018.06.026 · DOI
- 10.1212/01.wnl.0000280469.17461.94 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00330-012-2636-6 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.07.018 · DOI
- 10.1093/aje/kwu217 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Karipidis, K., Baaken, D., Loney, T., Blettner, M., Brzozek, C., Elwood, M., Narh, C., Orsini, N., Röösli, M., Paulo, M. S., et al. (2024) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2024.108983 · Cited by 58
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
- PMC
- PMC10103813
- 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