4.4 Article

Nationwide survey of acromegaly in South Korea

期刊

CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 78, 期 4, 页码 577-585

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/cen.12020

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  2. Korea government (MEST) [2012-0005434]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context It was previously reported in Korea that there were 1 center dot 4 case per million per year of acromegaly. This was low in comparison with the extrapolated values of Western European countries. We expected that the incidence of acromegaly would be much higher now because of recently improved medical facilities, diagnostic tools and coverage of medical insurance to all the population of South Korea. Objective The purpose of this nationwide survey was to examine the incidence and prevalence of patients with acromegaly, mode of treatment and outcome of surgical treatment of recent 5years. Design and patients We requested and collected the medical records of all possible patients with acromegaly from 74 secondary or tertiary medical institutes in Korea from 2003 to 2007 retrospectively. Measurements Date of diagnosis and treatment, tumour size, pre- and postoperative hormonal level, treatment modality and usage of medication were collected. Results During 5years, 1350 patients with acromegaly had been registered. The average annual incidence was 3 center dot 9 cases per million during this period, and prevalence had increased up to 27 center dot 9 cases per million in 2007. Male/female ratio was 1:1 center dot 2, and mean age at diagnosis was 44 center dot 1years. Macroadenoma was dominant (82 center dot 9%). Transsphenoidal adenoidectomy was used the most as primary treatment (90 center dot 4%). Conclusions This Korean acromegaly survey offers a realistic overview of the predominant epidemiological characteristics of acromegaly in Korea. Annual incidence was at a similar level with western countries. Efforts to diagnose and control the disease earlier are recommended.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据