Incidence of chronic myeloproliferative disorders in the city of Goteborg,Sweden 1983-1992

Citation
B. Ridell et al., Incidence of chronic myeloproliferative disorders in the city of Goteborg,Sweden 1983-1992, EUR J HAEMA, 65(4), 2000, pp. 267-271
Citations number
30
Categorie Soggetti
Hematology,"Cardiovascular & Hematology Research
Journal title
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
ISSN journal
09024441 → ACNP
Volume
65
Issue
4
Year of publication
2000
Pages
267 - 271
Database
ISI
SICI code
0902-4441(200010)65:4<267:IOCMDI>2.0.ZU;2-7
Abstract
An estimation of the incidence of polycythaemia vera (PV), essential thromb ocythaemia (ET) and chronic idiopathic myelofibrosis (CIM) in the city of G oteborg, Sweden during the period 1983-1992 was made from a retrospective c ase analysis of patients registered as chronic myeloproliferative disorders (CMPD) at the Departments of Medicine and the Department of Pathology of t he two major hospitals in the city. A total of 125 cases of PV, 56 males an d 69 females were identified. The number of cases as well as the age-specif ic incidence increased with age. The over all annual gender-specific incide nce was 2.69 cases per 10(5) male inhabitants and 3.12 cases per 10(5) fema le inhabitants. The incidence of PV in relation to the European Standard Po pulation was 2.02 cases per 10(5) inhabitants and year. There were 72 cases , 20 males and 52 females, with ET. The age-specific incidence was in all a ges higher for females than for males and increased with age. The annual ge nder-specific incidence was 0.96 per 105 male inhabitants and 2.35 per 10(5 ) female inhabitants. The incidence of ET in relation to the European Stand ard Population was 1.28 per 10(5) persons and year. There were 20 cases of CIM, 11 males and 9 females. The annual gender-specific incidence of CIM wa s 0.53/10(5) male inhabitants and 0.41/10(5) female inhabitants. The incide nce of CIM in relation to the European Standard Population was 0.31 per 10( 5) persons and year. Seven persons, 20 males and 5 females, had a CMPD that could not be included in any of the above-mentioned groups, but were regis tered as CMPD, unclassified.