© 2002 by Society
© 2002 by the Society forNeuro-Oncology
Consensus Conference on Brain Tumor Definition for Registration
Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School ofPublic Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60612 (B.J.M.,F.D.); Department of Pathology, University of TexasM.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030 (J.M.B.); Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States, Chicago,IL 60632 (B.J.M., T.S., C.K.)
2 Address correspondence and reprint requests to Carol Kruchko, Central BrainTumor Registry of the United States, 3333 West 47th St., Chicago, IL 60632.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
The Consensus Conference on Brain Tumor Definition was facilitated by theCentral Brain Tumor Registry of the United States and held on November 10,2000, in Chicago, Illinois, to reach multidisciplinary agreement on a standarddefinition of brain tumors for collecting and comparing data in the U.S. TheBrain Tumor Working Group, convened in 1998 to determine the status of braintumor collection in the U.S., outlined 4 recommendations of which the first 2guided the discussion for the Consensus Conference: (1) standardization of adefinition of primary brain tumors that is based on site alone, rather than onsite and behavior, and that can be used by surveillance organizations incollecting these tumors; and (2) development of a reporting scheme that can beused for comparing estimates of primary brain tumors across registries.Consensus was reached on the collection of all primary brain tumor histologiesfound and reported in the brain or CNS ICD-O site codes (C70.0-C72.9 andC75.1-C75.3), including those coded benign and uncertain as well as thosecoded malignant. In addition, a comprehensive listing of histologies occurringin the brain and CNS, based on the CBTRUS grouping scheme, was formulated toprovide a template for reporting in accordance with the second recommendationof the Brain Tumor Working Group. With consensus achieved on the first 2recommendations, the stage is set to move forward in estimating additionalresources necessary for the collection of these tumors, including funding,training for cancer registrars, identifying quality control measures, anddeveloping computerized edit checks, as outlined in the last 2 recommendationsof the Brain Tumor Working Group.
Received October 26, 2001; Accepted January 2, 2002
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. M. Buchanich, A. O. Youk, G. M. Marsh, Z. Bornemann, S. E. Lacey, K. J. Kennedy, R. P. Hancock, N. A. Esmen, and F. S. Lieberman Methodological Issues in a Retrospective Cancer Incidence Study Am. J. Epidemiol., July 1, 2009; 170(1): 112 - 119. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 U. Lim, A. F. Subar, T. Mouw, P. Hartge, L. M. Morton, R. Stolzenberg-Solomon, D. Campbell, A. R. Hollenbeck, and A. Schatzkin Consumption of aspartame-containing beverages and incidence of hematopoietic and brain malignancies. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., September 1, 2006; 15(9): 1654 - 1659. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Wrensch, T. Rice, R. Miike, A. McMillan, K. R. Lamborn, K. Aldape, and M. D. Prados Diagnostic, treatment, and demographic factors influencing survival in a population-based study of adult glioma patients in the San Francisco Bay Area Neuro Oncology, January 1, 2006; 8(1): 12 - 26. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. J. McCarthy, C. Kruchko, and Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States Consensus Conference on Cancer Registration of Brain and Central NervousSystem Tumors Neuro Oncology, April 1, 2005; 7(2): 196 - 201. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|