4 ms·
Is this actually likely to have a notable impact on the statistics? My understanding is that cases diagnosed later or discovered in autopsy will contribute just
by gnode 8y ago
Is this actually likely to have a notable impact on the statistics? My understanding is that cases diagnosed later or discovered in autopsy will contribute just as much as cases diagnosed early. Assuming that such tumours aren't routinely missed in autopsies. I imagine improvements in early detection may result in a temporary increase due to the shifting phase of detection, but this wouldn't account for a doubling over twenty years.
- astura 8y ago1) Most people aren't autopsied upon death, autopsies are only performed in limited circumstances. I don't personally know of a single person whom died who an autopsy was performed on. 2) The article is vague and short but "cases of GBM in England have increased from around 1,250 a year in 1995 to just under 3,000" almost certainly refers to diagnosed cases of GBM, not including incidentals found in autopsies.
- gnode 8y agoAutopsies are performed when the cause of death is indeterminate. Most people die of a known cause. A family member of mine was autopsied (in the UK) when they died unexpectedly. I expect that if killed by brain cancer, you'll either present symptoms resulting in a diagnosis (albeit a late one), or die unexpectedly and be autopsied.
- astura 8y agoYou're entirely ignoring comorbidity. Glioblastomas are associated with Alzheimer's disease. Its entirely possible that 20 years ago the symptoms of a brain tumor would be attributed to Alzheimer's when the patient was already dying of Alzheimer's, or other terminal illness for that matter. With better awareness and detection we may pick up new diagnoses in the sick and dying.