Archive for the ‘Apps’ Category

I LOVE NASCAR and  I LOVE this book.
A MUST READ…
As  a confimed ESTP- c’mon gang- get out your Myers – Briggs hats – my math/ science/mechanical  skills are – ahem- lacking. Sad to say, directions for assembling ANYTHING MECHANICAL look like they were written in Sanskrit. But I can read and absorb Shakespeare and Chaucer like the morning paper- go figure- it’s the human condition.
My odds of reading a physics book are – um- slim- at best.  
But I found a great book  I really want to recommend- fun- and as I am a huge NASCAR fan-three cheers for Dr. Diandra Leslie -Pelecky  she had me at hello…It always amazes me when one person is Dr. Sheldon Cooper and Penny all rolled into one- aw- c’mon  BIG BANG THEORY groupies- you l what I mean.
THE PHYSICS OF NASCAR by Dr. Diandra Leslie- Pelecky, is a real insider’s view of NASCAR- it is good science -great  fun reading and you will really learn alot about NASCAR…
HOW TO MAKE STEEL+ GAS+ RUBBER = SPEED is the best formula for great reading.
Dr. Diandra definitely  does not emulate Sheldon Cooper.The BIG BANG fans know what I mean.
Every NASCAR fan – at one time or another – asks the same question: Why isn’t my favorite driver winning? 
This is your chance to discover how much more there is to NASCAR than “Go fast, turn left and don’t crash.” If you’ve ever wondered why racecars don’t have mufflers, how “bump drafting” works, or what in the world “Let’s go up a pound on the right rear and add half a round of wedge” means, The Physics of NASCAR is for you.In this fast-paced investigation into the adrenaline-pumping world of NASCAR, a physicist with a passion uncovers what happens when the rubber hits the road and 800- horsepower vehicles compete at 190 miles per hour only inches from one another.Diandra Leslie-Pelecky reveals how and why drivers trust the engineering and science their teams literally build around them not only to get them across the finish line in first place, but also to keep them alive. Professor Leslie-Pelecky is a physicist in love with the sport’s beauty and power and is uniquely qualified to explain exactly how physics translates into winning races.Based on the author’s extensive access to race shops, pit crews, crew chiefs and mechanics, this book traces the life cycle of a race car from behind the scenes at top race shops to the track. The Physics of NASCAR takes readers right into the ultra competitive world of NASCAR, from the champion driver’s hot seat behind the detachable steering wheel to the New Zealander nicknamed Kiwi in charge of shocks for the No. 19 car.Diandra Leslie-Pelecky tells her story in terms anyone who drives a car–and maybe occasionally looks under the hood–can understand. How do drivers walk away from serious crashes? How can two cars travel faster together than either car can on its own? How do you dress for a 1800°F gasoline fire? In simple yet detailed, high-octane prose, this is the ultimate thrill ride for armchair speed demons, auto science buffs, and NASCAR fans at every level of interest.

Readers, start your engines. 

APPSNEWBIE SAYS….

Appsnewbie NEVER ceases to be amazed and intrigued with new technologies ..

CAMBER TIRES..FASTER ..SAFER..HMM  Remember the bias ply – or TUBEs -whoa- the time machine of automotive

supplies  ??

In 1839, Charles Goodyear accidentally discovered how rubber could be ‘vulcanized.’

Since then, the most notable tire advancements can be counted on one hand. Scot Robert Thompson invented the pneumatic tire in 1846. (Forty-two years later, Dr. John Dunlop had to reinvent Thompson’s discarded idea.) Michelin patented the steel-belted radial in 1946. Tubeless tires arrived in 1954 followed by the first run-flat designs in 1958 and low-profile sidewalls in 1968.

Add to this list of fearless pioneers John Scott who recently offered us what he calls a Camber Tire for testing and evaluation. In our June 2010 issue, Automobile Magazine selected this as one of the ten most significant emerging technologies. Now that we’ve enjoyed a few miles over the road on these tires and had the chance to conduct two preliminary performance tests, we’re more convinced that the Camber Tire concept is worthy of our acclaim.

Twelve years ago, Scott — a successful Wisconsin car dealer and mortgage broker — was inspired by the sight of a grossly overloaded Lexus sedan exhibiting excessive rear wheel and tire camber. Instead of running vertically, the tops of the rear tires were tipped sharply inward. While most of us would have moved on to the next item in our daily routines, Scott was convinced there was something to be gained by orienting tires in this braced sea-leg manner.

With his father’s backing he sketched his Camber Tire idea and hired an attorney to conduct a patent search. In 1999, he was issued US Patent 5975176 for a “tire with a constantly decreasing diameter.” Scott had invented the asymmetrical profile with an inner sidewall significantly shorter than the outer sidewall. While negative camber angles up to ten degrees might be beneficial, the first experimental tires Scott had made are molded with the tread angled two degrees.

In conjunction with a suspension adjusted to suit this radically different cross-section, Scott’s Camber Tire delivers a long list of claimed benefits:

 

  • Quieter running
  • Reduced tread wear
  • More predictable response during emergency maneuvers
  • Increased track width
  • Improved handling, braking, and high-speed stability
  • Improved straight-line steering
  • Superior performance during oval track racing

 

(See Scott’s website, www.cambertire.com, for the patent disclosure and detailed list of performance claims.)

This sounds like too much to be true. The skeptic in us wondered why the major tire makers weren’t on to this trick if it really paid such handsome dividends. There had to be a hitch. Driving on Camber Tires at the ragged limits of performance was the only way to see if they lived up to Scott’s promises. When he offered that opportunity with some experimental tires manufactured by his initial partner M&H, we were the first independent organization to put Camber Tires to the test.

Before adjourning to the track, this primer might be useful. The phenomenon called camber thrust is what a leaning motorcycle uses to assume a curved path. Tipping the tops of both tires towards the center of a bend develops lateral forces at the two points where the bike’s tire treads contact the pavement. These lateral forces, in combination with small steering angles, are what allows motorcycles to follow a curved cornering path.

Camber Tires Opener Camber Tires Opener Camber Tires Test Results Scott Camber Tire
Camber Tires Opener

Camber thrust is also useful in four-wheeled vehicles. The main benefit associated with tipping the tires off a perfectly vertical orientation is compensating for the body’s outward lean in a corner. Ideally, the entire tire tread should stay firmly and evenly planted against the pavement. Unfortunately, that ideal situation is disturbed by body lean and by the typical suspension system’s inability to fully compensate for the tipping body.

Car and tire designers avoid significant camber angles because, if one front tire runs at a camber angle and the other doesn’t, the car can feel twitchy and unpredictable on a straight path. Also, uneven tread wear occurs with tires rolling at steep camber angles.

The beauty of the Camber Tire is that its tread runs flat. Scott claims that his prototype tire treads showed normal life in long-mileage tests. But the more important benefit is the camber thrust available to enhance cornering ability without waiting for body roll or suspension deflection.

Forty years ago, racing driver-engineer Mark Donohue was so intrigued by the possible benefits of cambered tires that his crew constructed an experimental AMC Javelin for the Trans Am series combining cambered wheels with a live rear axle. Today, Goodyear is exploiting cambered tires in NASCAR. Since Sprint Cup cars only turn left on oval tracks, it’s beneficial to have the outboard tires running at steep negative (top towards the car) camber angles while the inboard tires operate at steep positive (top away from the car) camber. In the middle of a high-speed corner, when the body rolls a few degrees, this setup provides the ideal upright orientation, allowing all four tires to generate maximum adhesion.

The tests we conducted at the Bosch proving grounds in Flat Rock, Michigan, over south-eastern Michigan public roads, and at the Tire Rack’s testing facilities near South Bend, Indiana, were rudimentary by design and intent. The goal was to determine if the Camber Tire could deliver Scott’s phenomenal claims. We used two Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution test cars – one with standard Yokohama Advan A13 original equipment tires and factory camber settings (see results chart), one with front and rear suspensions reset with negative camber. Scott’s Optima Sports enterprise supplied two sets of Camber Tires for evaluation — one molded with a 140 tread wear rating, the other with R compound tread rubber. (The reference Advans have a 180 tread-wear rating — higher is better. R compound rubber is intended for gymkhana or race track use where traction is a much higher priority than tread wear.

We owe a special thanks to Automobile Magazine reader Jermaine Holland who generously provided the reference Evo test car and OE tires.)

Our results confirm that Camber Tires do provide measurable advantages over conventional rubber designs. Optima’s standard-tread design (second on the results chart) is a fairly close performance match with the original equipment Yokohama Advans. (After 23,000 miles of use, one Tire Rack customer rated these tires “simply the best tire an Evo driver can get.”) The R-compound Camber Tire delivered remarkable gains: versus the reference Advans, it shortened stopping distance by 11 feet and increased cornering grip by more than four percent (left and right lateral acceleration average).

Camber Tires Test Results Camber Tires Opener Camber Tires Opener Scott Camber Tire Camber Tires Opener
Camber Tires Test Results

Tire engineers would kill for any one-percent gain. Trimming braking distance by six percent while increasing cornering grip by four percent constitutes a major breakthrough.

We were also impressed at the subjective observations we noted with the Camber Tires. They turn in smartly with a purely linear and predictable response. The Evo’s drift angle was significantly reduced over what was demonstrated by the Evo on Advans. At the limit of cornering grip, minor changes in steering or throttle position were enough to hold the car on the desired line. The feedback provided to the driver through the steering wheel and the car’s minor movements were both clear and concise. The extra grip available here should be easy for any driver to use.

Even more amazing is how these radical tires performed on tattered Michigan back roads. They showed an uncanny ability to traverse pavement imperfections and potholes with much less trauma transmitted through the car’s chassis. Instead of reverberating through the suspension and body structure, each bump was of short duration. The Camber Tires ride as if they’re filled with marshmallows instead of cement.

Where from here? Scott is collaborating with M&H to construct more molds so that experimental Camber Tires can be evaluated in additional sizes. He also hopes to produce what he calls ‘square’ tires — radials with identical compounding and construction, minus the camber feature — to facilitate more equitable comparison tests. Plans are afoot for Optima Sports to sell some Camber Tires in the size we tested here to early adopters such as SCCA Solo competitors, track day users, and fanatic street drivers. But Scott’s ultimate intention is to license this technology to major manufacturers with the means to further develop his concept.

If and when the Camber Tire idea takes hold, John Scott will have earned his place next to the true tire heroes — Goodyear, Dunlop, and Michelin.

Read more: http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/1004_scotts_camber_tires/viewall.html#ixzz21axduvQj

Dream: the Possibilities are Endless!

 INCAnaut ENGINEERING CHALLENGE

Are you ready to discover the endless possibilities of technology? Are you ready to come up with your own dreams of the future? If you are, join the challenge, research your ideas, build models, and present them to the world!

 

Details:

There is an entrance fee of $200 dollars to use an INCA modeling kit with 100 nodes, a total of 625 pieces, valued at more than $400 for up to 4 months. Teams will be reimbursed the entrance fee and get $50 when they complete the challenge.

 

Who is Eligible?

Teams from any group at the High School level i.e. engineering/design clubs, Young Marines, Boy/Girl Scouts, etc.

 

Teams from any college or university

 

INCA Design teams consist of 2 to 5 students with no more than 3 teams per school.

 

Professors, teachers, and nonstudent mentors may advise and assist the team, but they cannot be team members.

 

How do I enter?


1. Fill out the registration form with a description of your entry in less than 100 words in one of nine categories:

 

  • Consumer Products – Products that increase quality of life in the workplace, at home during leisure time, or while traveling.
  • Machinery and Equipment – Mechanisms that speed up and improve work, manufacturing, or scientific research processes.
  • Medical – Devices that improve the efficiency and quality of healthcare.
  • Safety & Security – Devices that defend or enhance the security or safety of individuals, businesses, communities, or nations.
  • Sustainable Technology – Products that harness or use renewable energy sources, as well as products designed for other purposes using environmentally friendly materials or manufacturing processes.
  • Transportation – Machines that enable movement of people and goods from one place to another.
  • Structures – Products or housing that would help people live in new environments such as in the air, and on or under water.
  • Outer Space – Devices that would make living or working in outer space safer, easier or cheaper.
  • Other – Ideas and concepts that do not fit within the other categories.

 

2. Make $200 registration fee out to the INCAnaut Challenge.

 

What will I get when I register?

INCA modeling kit worth $400 to use and experiment for up to 4 months.

 

What do I have to do to complete the challenge?

 

  1. Keep a lab book – must have at least 10 pages of records.
  2. Make a poster displaying your ideas
  3. Make a video presentation or present at one of our events (10 to 15 minutes long).
  4. Write an essay explaining why your concept could be created in the future (400 to 500 words and must have at least 5 references).

 

How long do I have to complete the challenge?

A total of 4 months from the day you receive the INCA modeling kits.

 

What happens if I don’t meet the deadline?

Then your entry fee will not be reimbursed.

 

What happens if I complete the challenge?

The INCA modeling kit is returned and all work is submitted to the INCAnaut Challenge (must be postmarked by the 4 month deadline).

You receive a check for 250 dollars; which includes a reimbursement of your registration fee and 50 dollars for completing the challenge!

 

What happens if some of the pieces I send back are damaged or painted?

The cost of the damaged pieces is subtracted from the check we send you when you complete the challenge.

 

Can I participate more than once?

Yes, but you have to submit a proposal of your new design for approval before you can enter a second time because of the limited supply of models.

 

Important Info

  • Team meeting reports, brain storming session ideas, and other notes need to be kept in a black and white composition notebook which must be submitted.
  • All teams that cannot make it to the presentation event need to submit video presentations.
  • Each of the team members must actively participate in the design assembly, testing, promotion, and/or support in the team’s final presentation.

 

Tips for Entrants

The best entries clearly and concisely answer all of the following questions and are accompanied by illustrations that complement and illuminate the text:

 

  • What problem does your design idea solve?
  • What are the potential benefits?
  • How would this idea be applied?
  • How is your idea novel or an improvement on what is currently available in the marketplace?
  • Why would we need/want the design?
  • What is the market potential?
  • How does your design work?
  • How would your product be manufactured?

 

The best design ideas will:

  • Improve quality of life
  • Automate tedious tasks
  • Prevent or reduce injuries
  • Improve public safety and security
  • Save time and money
  • Offer alternative energy solutions
  • Reduce consumption of natural resources
  • Lead to other product improvements

THE VIRTUAL SCIENTIST GUEST

LECTURE SERIES

 

The Virtual Scientist Guest Lecture Series extends the educational scope of the SCIENCE SCREEN REPORT by bringing scientists into America’s classrooms in real time via the Internet. Using existing technology available through Skype, an internet based videophone service, SCIENCE SCREEN REPORT will arrange for scientists to participate in a “virtual” in-classroom visit without leaving their lab or research facility. The Virtual Scientist Guest Lecture Series allows both scientists and students to experience an interactive dialogue that inspires and engages students about dynamic cutting edge science research.

The technology requirements are minimal, requiring only that each participant (i.e. school and scientist) have a computer with high speed internet access, a high quality monitor, webcam, speakers and microphone. Skype software can be downloaded from www.skype.com free of charge. As the liaison between the school, sponsor and guest lecturer SCIENCE SCREEN REPORT makes all necessary arrangements for the virtual visit.

“Virtual” visits last about 30 minutes in order to fit within a standard class period. The presentation format varies according to the preference of the speaker and educator but will generally include a presentation followed by Q&A. The classroom teacher acts as the moderator and oversees the necessary pre-visit preparation.

Click here to view a short clip showcasing a “virtual scientist” visit featuring a biologist from the Florida-Atlantic University talking to a group of 7th graders at a school in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.


SCIENCE SCREEN REPORT and SCIENCE SCREEN REPORT FOR KIDS are two fascinating series of educational DVDs designed to encourage scientific literacy by piquing the curiosity of the next generation of scientific, business and academic leaders about a broad range of dynamic, cutting-edge innovations.

SCIENCE SCREEN REPORT is produced to directly address National Science Standards and Science Literacy Benchmarks. Each show is approximately 15 minutes in length and can be viewed during a class period with time remaining for open discussion.

Each program (offered on DVD as well as MPEG for school system streaming) offers stimulating visions of our hi-tech world at work, helping students form an appreciation for the subjects that will encourage them to continue their studies, and perhaps even pursue an exciting career in the sciences.

SCIENCE SCREEN REPORT and SCIENCE SCREEN REPORT FOR KIDS are produced by Allegro Productions, Inc., a former Time Inc. company.  The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology and a panel of dedicated educators help in the production of the programs.

If you are a scientist/ physician/researcher/ ther are over 2000 class rooms and 10,000,000 students a year who woulds LOVE to find out about your discovery.

The SCIENE SCREEN REPORT  has  provided STEM DVD educational tools FREE OF CHARGE to students and teachers across the United States and Canada, for over 40 year and cover over 2000 school districts.

It is estimated that 10,000,000 students per  school year view the SCIENCE SCREEN REPORT educational tools.

If you would like to have your message reach classrooms and millions of students

nationwide and in Canada, please email:

maxinep@ssrvideo.com

The Great American Domino Effect Engineering

Challenge

SCIENCE SCREEN REPORT will be presenting a The Great American Domino Effect Engineering Challenge at the USA Science & Engineering Festival in Washington DC, April 27-29.  Look for us at Booth 1231 in the Walter E. Washington Convention Center!

SCIENCE SCREEN REPORT, the nation’s preeminent science program for schools, presents the “Great American Domino Effect Challenge”. Individuals or teams will get 10 minutes to test their engineering skills by building the biggest and best structure from dominos and then creating a “domino effect” by knocking down the dominoes without breaking the pattern. The SSR team will take photos of all entries and display the pictures online and at our exhibit. Prizes available for the most creative structures and best “domino effect”!

For more information visit:

USA Science & Engineering Festival

WELCOME to

http://www.abcom.com

the ALBANIAN ISP

SO many isp providers- let us all remember that there  is

an ALLADINS CAVE of new internet treasures- but you have to

look…

APPSNEWBIE SAYS

TheBocaHerald, a non-profit publication. We are an Online News Journal – What makes us different is that our readers are our writers and photographic contributors.

We are a non-profit publication of The Strategic Business Institute

“Your Paper”
The  ”Promenade” event - A  positive vision of what’s to come for Downtown Boca

By: Alexander Adams

If this weekend were any indication, the crowds are very comfortable moving south, from Mizner Park to Royal Palm Plaza through the Promenade or “spine” project on Palmetto Park Road, between Mizner Park to the North and Royal Palm Plaza to the South. Local developers and residents ha a front row to a successful event.

Meet me on the Promenade was a great showcase of what Boca Raton is becoming, an all-around great event,

I can’t wait until next year, hat’s off to the event organizers… and those in charge of weather! 

WHAT an ALLIANCE The Strategic Business Institute and THE BOCA HERALD…

MORE TO COME..

APPSNEWBIE LOVES THIS

SUPPORT WXEL TV CHANNEL 42 PBS

BOYNTON BEACH FLORIDA:TELL ME ON THE SURVEY

What comes to mind when do you think when you of Boynton Beach FL?
Beaches? The Ocean ? Shopping?/
The historic and welcoming oceanfront City of Boynton Beach Florida wants to hear from YOU.
Please click on the link- even if you are in Mumbai-London or Boise please let us know what you think OR
NOT about boynton Beach -the City by the Sea- in Palm Beach County Florida..
Y'all Come
http://www.boynton-beach.org/government/branding_survey.html
APPSNEWBIE SAYS
SUPPORT WXEL TV CHANNEL 42 PBS

 

 

 

 

LaunchRock Launches!

 

Since February, the Launch Rock platform has helped acquire more than 1.5 million sign-ups for our 4,600+ beta customers (with over 65,000 on the waiting list). These include countless tech startups, private-sale clothing lines, independent films, private airlines, albums, conferences, newsletters and even bridal-showers.

This is a  very exciting and  entirely new version of LaunchRock. The infrastructure  has been ebuilt from the ground up, and the site-builder has been completely redesigned to make creating and managing a LaunchRock hosted page, or embeddable widget, much easier.

Please  see the Great  infographic!

APPSNEWBIE LOVES LAUNCHROCK

PLEASE SUPPORT WXEL TV CHANNEL 42 PBS

www.wxel.org

PLEASE SUPPORT  BRAIN CANCER RESEARCH

www.sontagfoundation.org

LaunchRock Reaches 1.5 Million Signups

For the first time, scientists can see pathways to stop a deadly brain cancer in its tracks.

 

 Facts & Statistics  

……………………………………………………………………………………………

Brain tumors do not discriminate. Primary brain tumors, those that begin in the brain and tend to stay in the brain, occur in people of all ages, but they are statistically more frequent in children and older adults.

Metastatic brain tumors, those that begin as a cancer elsewhere in the body, and spread to the brain, are more common in adults than in children.

The facts and statistics here include brain and spinal cord tumors (central nervous system tumors).

 We continually update these statistics, as they become available, at our web site: www.abta.org.

 

This material was last updated in August 2008. Thank you  thank the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS) for their assistance with that update.

These numbers address incidence, trends and patterns in the United States only. For international statistics, please visit CBTRUS at www.cbtrus.org.

Incidence Statistics

 

An estimated 52,236 new cases of primary brain tumors are expected to be diagnosed in 2008.

 This is based on an overall incidence rate of 16.5 per 100,000 persons1 and a 2008 United States population estimate of 304,228,257 (www.census.gov). Note: estimated numbers were calculated using age‐specific rates and population estimates.

Incidence is the number of people newly diagnosed in one year. Rate is the measure of the amount of a disease in a specific population. It is calculated by counting the number of people with the disease and dividing by the total population at risk.

Why is there a wide variation in the reported incidence of primary brain tumors? Sources that quote the incident number of brain tumors at about 22,000 people

(12,000 males and 10,000 females) diagnosed per year do so based on data counting only malignant brain tumors.6 The incident number of 52,236 persons diagnosed in 2008 includes both malignant and benign brain tumors. The number is based on the incidence rate from 2000‐2004 data (which is the latest available) applied to the projected 2008U.S.population.

In theUnited States, approximately 3,750 children younger than age 20 were expected to be diagnosed in 2007 with primary brain tumors, of which 2,820 were under age 15.1

Brain tumors are the most common of the solid tumors in children, and the leading cause of death from solid tumors.1,2 Brain tumors are the second most frequent malignancy of childhood.2

Although statistics for brain metastases are not readily available, it is estimated that over 100,000 cancer patients per year will have symptoms due to a metastatic brain tumor or a metastatic brain tumor in the spinal cord.3 Metastatic brain tumors begin as a cancer elsewhere in the body and spread, or metastasize, to the brain. Primary brain tumors are tumors that begin in the brain and tend to stay in the brain.

Regarding Incidence Rates

The incidence of malignant brain tumors appears to increase steadily with age. The lowest incidence rate is among children less than 20 years (4.5 per 100,000 persons). The rate increases steadily until age 75—84, when it peaks at 57 per 100,000 persons. After age 85, the incidence rate drops to 56.1

Prevalence Statistics

It is estimated that, during the year 2000, approximately 359,000 people in theUnited Stateswere living with the diagnosis of a primary brain or central nervous system tumor. Specifically, more than 81,000 persons were living with a malignant tumor, more than 267,000 persons with a benign tumor, and more than 10,000 persons with a tumor of uncertain behavior.5 Note: year 2000 prevalence statistics are the most recent available.

For every 100,000 people in theUnited States, approximately 131 are living following the diagnosis of a brain tumor. This represents a prevalence rate of 130.8 per 100,000 persons.5

Of the brain tumor survivors, about 75% were diagnosed with benign tumors, 23% were diagnosed with malignant tumors, 2% with tumors of uncertain behaviors.5

The prevalence rate for primary malignant tumor survivors is estimated to be 29.5 per 100,000. The prevalence rate for primary benign tumor survivors is estimated to be 97.5 per 100,000 persons.5

Pediatric Statistics

An estimated 3,750 children under age 20 were expected to be diagnosed with a primary benign or malignant brain tumor in 2007. 1 Of these, 2,820 were expected to be less than 15 years of age, and 930 between the ages of 15 and 19.

The incidence rate of 4.5 per 100,000 children is slightly higher in boys (4.7 per 100,000) than girls (4.3 per 100,000)1.

Brain tumors are the second most frequent malignancy of childhood6 and the most common of the solid tumors in children.2 Brain tumors are the second leading cause of cancer‐related deaths in children under the age of 20.6 Leukemia remains the first.2, 6

The majority of childhood tumors (18.5%) are located within the frontal, temporal, parietal, and occipital lobes of the brain. Tumors located in the cerebrum, ventricle, brain stem and cerebellum account for 6%, 6%, 12%, and 17% of all childhood tumors, respectively. Other tumors of the brain account for 17% of all childhood tumors.1

Gliomas account a significant percentage of childhood tumors:

56% of all tumors and 74% of malignant tumors in children age 0—14

45% of all tumors and 81% of malignant tumors in children age 15—19.1

 

Trends in incidence of primary malignant brain tumors for children in the United States using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program data and a sophisticated statistical technique were evaluated in 1998.7 SEER is a

program of the National Cancer Institute. It collects and analyzes information on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival in the U.S. SEER data does not include benign brain tumors. The incidence of brain malignancies did not increase steadily from 1978 to 1994 as previously reported, but rather “jumped” to a steady, higher rate after 1984‐85. The timing of the “jump” coincided with the wider availability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in theUnited States.

This finding, combined with the absence of any “jump” in corresponding mortality for the same period, appears due to improved diagnosis and reporting during the 1980s.

Age‐, Gender‐, and Race‐Specific Statistics

The incidence rate of primary non‐malignant and malignant brain and central nervous system tumors is 16.5 cases per 100,000 persons (15.8 per 100,000 for males and 17.2 per 100,000 for females). For malignant brain and other nervous system tumors, the incidence rate is 7.7 per 100,000 for males and 5.4 per 100,000 for females.2 Rates are age‐adjusted to the year 2000U.S.standard population.

Brain tumors are the:

the second leading cause of cancer‐related deaths in children under age 20

the second leading cause of cancer‐related deaths in males up to age 39

the second leading cause of cancer‐related deaths in females under age 20.

the fifth leading cause of cancer‐related deaths in females ages 20–39.6

 

Within the following age groups, the most common primary brain tumors are:

In ages 0—4, embryonal/primitive neuroectodermal tumors/medulloblastomas (incidence rate of 1.06 per 100,000 people), followed by pilocytic astrocytomas (.99);

in ages 5—9, pilocytic astrocytomas (1.01 per 100,000) followed by embryonal/primitive/medulloblastomas (.73);

in ages 10—14, pilocytic astrocytomas (.83 per 100,000) followed by malignant gliomas (.44);

in ages 15—19, pilocytic astrocytomas (.63 per 100,000) followed by pituitary tumors (.60 );

in ages 20—34, pituitary (1.16 per 100,000) followed by meningioma tumors (.91);

 

 

in ages 35—44, meningiomas (3.32 per 100,000) followed by pituitary tumors (1.56);

in ages 45—54, meningiomas (6.87 per 100,000) followed by glioblastoma (3.70);

in ages 55—64, meningiomas (10.91 per 100,000) followed by glioblastoma (8.09);

in ages 65—74, meningiomas (17.61 per 100,000) followed by glioblastoma (12.47);

in ages 75—84, meningiomas (24.42 per 100,000) followed by glioblastoma (14.13); and,

in ages 85 and older, meningiomas (29.53 per 100,000) followed by glioblastoma (7.63) 1

 

The median age of diagnosis for all primary brain tumors is 57 years old. 1

Rates for all primary brain tumors combined are higher among Whites (16.8 per 100,000 persons) than African‐Americans (13.0 per 100,000). The difference between these rates is statistically significant1.

By race and ethnicity, the overall incidence rate for primary brain and central nervous system tumors among Hispanics is 15.4 per 100,000, compared to 13.3 per 100,000 for non‐Hispanic African‐Americans and 17.1 per 100,000 for White non‐Hispanics. 1

Tumor‐Specific Statistics

Meningiomas represent 32% of all primary brain tumors, making them the most common primary brain tumor.1

Gliomas, a broad term which includes all tumors arising from the gluey or supportive tissue of the brain, represent 39% of all brain tumors and 81% of all malignant tumors.1

Glioblastomas represent 19% of all primary brain tumors, and 51% of all gliomas1

Astrocytomas represent 8.5% of all primary brain tumors.1

Astrocytomas and glioblastomas combined represent 75% of all gliomas. 1

Nerve sheath tumors (such as acoustic neuromas) represent 9% of all primary brain tumors.1

Pituitary tumors represent 8.4% of all primary brain tumors.1

Lymphomas represent 2.8% of all primary brain tumors.1

Oligodendrogliomas represent 3% of all primary brain tumors.1

Medulloblastomas/embryonal/primitive tumors represent 1.5% of all brain tumors.1

Metastatic brain tumors are the most common brain tumor, with an annual incidence more than four times greater than that of primary brain tumors.

The cancers that most commonly metastasize to the brain are lung and breast.

The majority of tumors (29%) are located in the meninges, while 27% are located within the frontal, temporal, parietal and occipital lobes of the brain.1

Survival Trends

In 2008, the American Cancer Society reported a significant decrease in the number of brain and central nervous system cancer deaths over the past 13 years. Deaths due to malignant brain tumors decreased 14.36% between 1991 and 2004.6

In an analysis of SEER data from 1973‐2001, five year survival rates for those with malignant brain tumors showed improvement over a three decade period: 21% in the 1970’s, 27% in the 1980’s, and 31% in the 1990’s.9

Another analysis of survival rates for those with primary malignant brain tumors was reported by the Central Brain Tumor Registry in data obtained from SEER. From 1973—1976, 22% of persons diagnosed in theUSwith a malignant brain tumor survived at least five years. For those diagnosed from 1992‐1998, that survival rate increased to 32%.

The latest, expanded 1973‐2004 SEER data shows a 29% survival rate for males and 32% rate for females.1 Children, age 0 to 19, had the highest five‐year

survival rate at 66% between 1973 and 2004. That survival rate diminishes as age increases, down to 5% for persons age 75 and older.1

For Whites, the five‐year survival rate jumped from 22% between 1974 and 1976, to 34% between 1996 and 2003.6 For African Americans, the five‐year survival rates for the same time periods increased from 27 to 37%.6

NOTE – The term “five year survival” does not mean that group of people lived only five years after the start of the study. It means the study followed them for only five years. Five years is a standard “goal” in measuring survival for most diseases.

Five year, or even ten year, survival statistics do not tell us how many people lived longer than the five or ten years of the study. Those statistics require longer‐term follow‐up of people diagnosed with the given disease, which can be challenging to do in our mobile society. It can be very difficult for researchers to stay in contact with patients for more than five or ten years given the frequency of American family moves.

Sources

1CBTRUS 2007‐2008. Primary Brain Tumors in theUnited StatesStatistical Report 2000‐2004. Central Brain Tumor Registry of theUnited States.

2Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M, Mariotto A, Miller BA, Feuer EJ, Clegg L, Horner MJ, Holader N, Eisner MP, Reichman M, Edwards BK (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975‐2004, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2004/, based on November 2006 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2007.

3Lenhard Jr. RE, Osteen RT, Gansler T. Clinical Oncology, American Cancer Society, 2001, p. 655.

4Legler JM, Ries LAG, Smith MA, Warren JL, et al. “Brain and Other Central Nervous System Cancers: Recent Trends in Incidence and Mortality.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 91, No. 16, August 18, 1999, pp. 1382‐1390.

5Davis FG, Kupelian V, Freels S, McCarthy B, Surawicz T. “Prevalence estimates for primary brain tumors in the United States by behavior and Major histology groups.” Neuro‐Oncology, Vol. 3, No. 3, June 2001, pp. 152‐158.

6Jemel A, Siegel, R, Ward,E. Murray, T, et al. Cancer Statistics, 2008. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. American Cancer Society. Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 71‐96.

7Smith MA, Freidlin B, Ries LAG, Simon R. “Trends in reported incidence of primary malignant brain tumors in children in the United States.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Sept 1998, Vol. 90, No. 17, pp. 1269‐1277.

8Estimated by CBTRUS using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program public use CD‐ROM (1973‐2002). National Cancer Institute, CDCPC, Surveillance Program, Cancer Statistics Branch, issued April 2005, based on the November 2004 submission.

9Sundeep, D, Lynch, C. Trends in brain cancer incidence and survival in theUnited States: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, 1973 to 2001. Neurosurgical Focus 20 (4):E1, 2006

 

For Additional Information

In 1990, the American Brain Tumor Association conducted a feasibility study to evaluate the status of brain tumor data collection, and to determine the practicality of starting a registry whose purpose would be the collection of statistics for both benign and malignant brain tumors. The results of that study highlighted both the need and feasibility of such a registry. The American Brain Tumor Association then incorporated the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS), and provided organization and financial support to the new entity.

CBTRUS was incorporated as a not‐for‐profit organization in 1992 to provide a resource for the gathering and circulating of current information on all primary brain tumors, benign and malignant, for the purposes of:

describing incidence and survival patterns

evaluating diagnosis and treatment

facilitating etiologic (causation) studies

establishing awareness of the disease

and, ultimately, for the prevention of all brain tumors.

 

State or regional tumor registries obtain information about brain tumor patients

from hospitals in their area. CBTRUS began by collection information from four registries that were already collecting data on benign and malignant brain tumors. Using their preliminary data, CBTRUS conducted studies to determine diagnostic accuracy and data completeness. They now have the voluntary collaboration of 15 state registries, and encourage other population‐based registries that collect data on benign and malignant brain tumors to contact them about their efforts. The data collected is used to define incidence roles of all primary brain tumors, and can be used by researchers to identify geographic clusters of patients.

CBTRUS joined the North American Brain Tumor Coalition in supporting federal legislation (Public Law 107‐260) that passed in October 2002 that enables government funded surveillance organizations to collect data on primary benign bran tumors beginning in 2004.

Please visit the Web site of the Central Brain Tumor Registry at www.cbtrus.org. For more information or additional statistical data on primary brain tumors, contact CBTRUS at3333 W. 47th St.,Chicago,Illinois60632. Phone. 630‐655‐4786.

Web: www.cbtrus.org

What a potential breakthrough.

Researchers at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine have imaged individual cancer cells and the routes they travel as the tumor spreads.

The researchers used a novel cryo-imaging technique to obtain the unprecedented look at a mouse model of glioblastoma multiforme, a particularly aggressive cancer that has no treatments to stop it from spreading.

Uncovering the Spread

A first-of-a-kind look at the brain cancer, glioblastoma multiforme, was obtained using a new imaging technique at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. The main tumor is green, blood vessels feeding the tumor are red and migrating cells, yellow. Credit: Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine

A description of their work, and images, will be published in the journal Cancer Research.

“We’re able to see things we couldn’t before, and we can use these images to understand how tumor cells invade and disperse,” said Susann M. Brady-Kalnay, a professor of molecular biology and microbiology at the Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, and senior author of the paper.

That information, in turn, can be used to help develop and test the effectiveness of drugs and other therapies used to treat the cancer, she said.

To obtain the view, the scientists used a model that included four different cell lines of brain cancers at various stages of tumor development and dispersion.

The cancer cells were modified with fluorescent markers and implanted in the model’s brain in collaboration with Biomedical Engineering Professor James Basilion’s lab.

The cryo-imaging system, developed by David Wilson, also a professor of biomedical engineering at Case Western Reserve, disassembles the brain layer by layer and reassembles the model into a color three-dimensional digital image.

Using software and algorithms designed by the researchers, they are able to differentiate the main tumor mass, the blood vessels that feed the cancer and dispersing cells. The imaging system enables them to peer at single cells and see exactly where they are in the brain.

The lead researchers, Susan Burden-Gulley, Mohammed Qutaish and Kristin Sullivant, found that two cell lines, a human brain cancer LN229, and a rodent cancer CNS-1, best resemble the actions of glioblastoma multiforme in human patients.

Reconstructions of models of those two lines enabled the researchers to analyze the extent and patterns of cancer cell migration and dispersal from tumors along blood vessels and white matter tracts within the brain.

The ability to produce such clear and detailed images, the researchers say, will be invaluable when evaluating the potency of drugs and other therapies designed to block dispersal of glioblastoma multiforme cells.

For the brain cancer patient , researcher and caregiver, this is very exciting.

Facts & Statistics, 2008
……………………………………………………………………………………………
Brain tumors do not discriminate. Primary brain tumors ‐ those that begin in the brain and tend to stay in the brain ‐ occur in people of all ages, but they are statistically more frequent in children and older adults. Metastatic brain tumors – those that begin as a cancer elsewhere in the body and spread to the brain ‐ are more common in adults than in children.
The facts and statistics here include brain and spinal cord tumors (central nervous system tumors). We continually update these statistics, as they become available, at our web site: www.abta.org. This material was last updated in August 2008. We thank the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS) for their assistance with that update.
These numbers address incidence, trends and patterns in the United States only. For international statistics, please visit CBTRUS at www.cbtrus.org.
Incidence Statistics
An estimated 52,236 new cases of primary brain tumors are expected to be diagnosed in 2008. This is based on an overall incidence rate of 16.5 per 100,000 persons1 and a 2008 United States population estimate of 304,228,257 (www.census.gov). Note: estimated numbers were calculated using age‐specific rates and population estimates.
Incidence is the number of people newly diagnosed in one year. Rate is the measure of the amount of a disease in a specific population. It is calculated by counting the number of people with the disease and dividing by the total population at risk.
Why is there a wide variation in the reported incidence of primary brain tumors? Sources that quote the incident number of brain tumors at about 22,000 people
(12,000 males and 10,000 females) diagnosed per year do so based on data counting only malignant brain tumors.6 The incident number of 52,236 persons diagnosed in 2008 includes both malignant and benign brain tumors. The number is based on the incidence rate from 2000‐2004 data (which is the latest available) applied to the projected 2008 U.S. population.
In the United States, approximately 3,750 children younger than age 20 were expected to be diagnosed in 2007 with primary brain tumors, of which 2,820 were under age 15.1
Brain tumors are the most common of the solid tumors in children, and the leading cause of death from solid tumors.1,2 Brain tumors are the second most frequent malignancy of childhood.2
Although statistics for brain metastases are not readily available, it is estimated that over 100,000 cancer patients per year will have symptoms due to a metastatic brain tumor or a metastatic brain tumor in the spinal cord.3 Metastatic brain tumors begin as a cancer elsewhere in the body and spread, or metastasize, to the brain. Primary brain tumors are tumors that begin in the brain and tend to stay in the brain.
Regarding Incidence Rates
The incidence of malignant brain tumors appears to increase steadily with age. The lowest incidence rate is among children less than 20 years (4.5 per 100,000 persons). The rate increases steadily until age 75—84, when it peaks at 57 per 100,000 persons. After age 85, the incidence rate drops to 56.1
Prevalence Statistics
It is estimated that, during the year 2000, approximately 359,000 people in the United States were living with the diagnosis of a primary brain or central nervous system tumor. Specifically, more than 81,000 persons were living with a malignant tumor, more than 267,000 persons with a benign tumor, and more than 10,000 persons with a tumor of uncertain behavior.5 Note: year 2000 prevalence statistics are the most recent available.
For every 100,000 people in the United States, approximately 131 are living following the diagnosis of a brain tumor. This represents a prevalence rate of 130.8 per 100,000 persons.5
Of the brain tumor survivors, about 75% were diagnosed with benign tumors, 23% were diagnosed with malignant tumors, 2% with tumors of uncertain behaviors.5
The prevalence rate for primary malignant tumor survivors is estimated to be 29.5 per 100,000. The prevalence rate for primary benign tumor survivors is estimated to be 97.5 per 100,000 persons.5
Pediatric Statistics
An estimated 3,750 children under age 20 were expected to be diagnosed with a primary benign or malignant brain tumor in 2007. 1 Of these, 2,820 were expected to be less than 15 years of age, and 930 between the ages of 15 and 19.
The incidence rate of 4.5 per 100,000 children is slightly higher in boys (4.7 per 100,000) than girls (4.3 per 100,000)1.
Brain tumors are the second most frequent malignancy of childhood6 and the most common of the solid tumors in children.2 Brain tumors are the second leading cause of cancer‐related deaths in children under the age of 20.6 Leukemia remains the first.2, 6
The majority of childhood tumors (18.5%) are located within the frontal, temporal, parietal, and occipital lobes of the brain. Tumors located in the cerebrum, ventricle, brain stem and cerebellum account for 6%, 6%, 12%, and 17% of all childhood tumors, respectively. Other tumors of the brain account for 17% of all childhood tumors.1
Gliomas account a significant percentage of childhood tumors:
•
56% of all tumors and 74% of malignant tumors in children age 0—14
•
45% of all tumors and 81% of malignant tumors in children age 15—19.1
Trends in incidence of primary malignant brain tumors for children in the United States using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program data and a sophisticated statistical technique were evaluated in 1998.7 SEER is a
program of the National Cancer Institute. It collects and analyzes information on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival in the U.S. SEER data does not include benign brain tumors. The incidence of brain malignancies did not increase steadily from 1978 to 1994 as previously reported, but rather “jumped” to a steady, higher rate after 1984‐85. The timing of the “jump” coincided with the wider availability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the United States.
This finding, combined with the absence of any “jump” in corresponding mortality for the same period, appears due to improved diagnosis and reporting during the 1980s.
Age‐, Gender‐, and Race‐Specific Statistics
The incidence rate of primary non‐malignant and malignant brain and central nervous system tumors is 16.5 cases per 100,000 persons (15.8 per 100,000 for males and 17.2 per 100,000 for females). For malignant brain and other nervous system tumors, the incidence rate is 7.7 per 100,000 for males and 5.4 per 100,000 for females.2 Rates are age‐adjusted to the year 2000 U.S. standard population.
Brain tumors are the:
•
the second leading cause of cancer‐related deaths in children under age 20
•
the second leading cause of cancer‐related deaths in males up to age 39
•
the second leading cause of cancer‐related deaths in females under age 20.
•
the fifth leading cause of cancer‐related deaths in females ages 20–39.6
Within the following age groups, the most common primary brain tumors are:
•
In ages 0—4, embryonal/primitive neuroectodermal tumors/medulloblastomas (incidence rate of 1.06 per 100,000 people), followed by pilocytic astrocytomas (.99);
•
in ages 5—9, pilocytic astrocytomas (1.01 per 100,000) followed by embryonal/primitive/medulloblastomas (.73);
•
in ages 10—14, pilocytic astrocytomas (.83 per 100,000) followed by malignant gliomas (.44);
•
in ages 15—19, pilocytic astrocytomas (.63 per 100,000) followed by pituitary tumors (.60 );
•
in ages 20—34, pituitary (1.16 per 100,000) followed by meningioma tumors (.91);
•
in ages 35—44, meningiomas (3.32 per 100,000) followed by pituitary tumors (1.56);
•
in ages 45—54, meningiomas (6.87 per 100,000) followed by glioblastoma (3.70);
•
in ages 55—64, meningiomas (10.91 per 100,000) followed by glioblastoma (8.09);
•
in ages 65—74, meningiomas (17.61 per 100,000) followed by glioblastoma (12.47);
•
in ages 75—84, meningiomas (24.42 per 100,000) followed by glioblastoma (14.13); and,
•
in ages 85 and older, meningiomas (29.53 per 100,000) followed by glioblastoma (7.63) 1
The median age of diagnosis for all primary brain tumors is 57 years old. 1
Rates for all primary brain tumors combined are higher among Whites (16.8 per 100,000 persons) than African‐Americans (13.0 per 100,000). The difference between these rates is statistically significant1.
By race and ethnicity, the overall incidence rate for primary brain and central nervous system tumors among Hispanics is 15.4 per 100,000, compared to 13.3 per 100,000 for non‐Hispanic African‐Americans and 17.1 per 100,000 for White non‐Hispanics. 1
Tumor‐Specific Statistics
Meningiomas represent 32% of all primary brain tumors, making them the most common primary brain tumor.1
Gliomas, a broad term which includes all tumors arising from the gluey or supportive tissue of the brain, represent 39% of all brain tumors and 81% of all malignant tumors.1
Glioblastomas represent 19% of all primary brain tumors, and 51% of all gliomas1
Astrocytomas represent 8.5% of all primary brain tumors.1
Astrocytomas and glioblastomas combined represent 75% of all gliomas. 1
Nerve sheath tumors (such as acoustic neuromas) represent 9% of all primary brain tumors.1
Pituitary tumors represent 8.4% of all primary brain tumors.1
Lymphomas represent 2.8% of all primary brain tumors.1
Oligodendrogliomas represent 3% of all primary brain tumors.1
Medulloblastomas/embryonal/primitive tumors represent 1.5% of all brain tumors.1
Metastatic brain tumors are the most common brain tumor, with an annual incidence more than four times greater than that of primary brain tumors.
The cancers that most commonly metastasize to the brain are lung and breast.
The majority of tumors (29%) are located in the meninges, while 27% are located within the frontal, temporal, parietal and occipital lobes of the brain.1
Survival Trends
In 2008, the American Cancer Society reported a significant decrease in the number of brain and central nervous system cancer deaths over the past 13 years. Deaths due to malignant brain tumors decreased 14.36% between 1991 and 2004.6
In an analysis of SEER data from 1973‐2001, five year survival rates for those with malignant brain tumors showed improvement over a three decade period: 21% in the 1970’s, 27% in the 1980’s, and 31% in the 1990’s.9
Another analysis of survival rates for those with primary malignant brain tumors was reported by the Central Brain Tumor Registry in data obtained from SEER. From 1973—1976, 22% of persons diagnosed in the US with a malignant brain tumor survived at least five years. For those diagnosed from 1992‐1998, that survival rate increased to 32%.
The latest, expanded 1973‐2004 SEER data shows a 29% survival rate for males and 32% rate for females.1 Children, age 0 to 19, had the highest five‐year
survival rate at 66% between 1973 and 2004. That survival rate diminishes as age increases, down to 5% for persons age 75 and older.1
For Whites, the five‐year survival rate jumped from 22% between 1974 and 1976, to 34% between 1996 and 2003.6 For African Americans, the five‐year survival rates for the same time periods increased from 27 to 37%.6
NOTE – The term “five year survival” does not mean that group of people lived only five years after the start of the study. It means the study followed them for only five years. Five years is a standard “goal” in measuring survival for most diseases.
Five year, or even ten year, survival statistics do not tell us how many people lived longer than the five or ten years of the study. Those statistics require longer‐term follow‐up of people diagnosed with the given disease, which can be challenging to do in our mobile society. It can be very difficult for researchers to stay in contact with patients for more than five or ten years given the frequency of American family moves.
Sources
1CBTRUS 2007‐2008. Primary Brain Tumors in the United States Statistical Report 2000‐2004. Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States.
2Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M, Mariotto A, Miller BA, Feuer EJ, Clegg L, Horner MJ, Holader N, Eisner MP, Reichman M, Edwards BK (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975‐2004, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2004/, based on November 2006 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2007.
3Lenhard Jr. RE, Osteen RT, Gansler T. Clinical Oncology, American Cancer Society, 2001, p. 655.
4Legler JM, Ries LAG, Smith MA, Warren JL, et al. “Brain and Other Central Nervous System Cancers: Recent Trends in Incidence and Mortality.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 91, No. 16, August 18, 1999, pp. 1382‐1390.
5Davis FG, Kupelian V, Freels S, McCarthy B, Surawicz T. “Prevalence estimates for primary brain tumors in the United States by behavior and Major histology groups.” Neuro‐Oncology, Vol. 3, No. 3, June 2001, pp. 152‐158.
6Jemel A, Siegel, R, Ward, E. Murray, T, et al. Cancer Statistics, 2008. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. American Cancer Society. Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 71‐96.
7Smith MA, Freidlin B, Ries LAG, Simon R. “Trends in reported incidence of primary malignant brain tumors in children in the United States.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Sept 1998, Vol. 90, No. 17, pp. 1269‐1277.
8Estimated by CBTRUS using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program public use CD‐ROM (1973‐2002). National Cancer Institute, CDCPC, Surveillance Program, Cancer Statistics Branch, issued April 2005, based on the November 2004 submission.
9Sundeep, D, Lynch, C. Trends in brain cancer incidence and survival in the United States: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, 1973 to 2001. Neurosurgical Focus 20 (4):E1, 2006
For Additional Information
In 1990, the American Brain Tumor Association conducted a feasibility study to evaluate the status of brain tumor data collection, and to determine the practicality of starting a registry whose purpose would be the collection of statistics for both benign and malignant brain tumors. The results of that study highlighted both the need and feasibility of such a registry. The American Brain Tumor Association then incorporated the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS), and provided organization and financial support to the new entity.
CBTRUS was incorporated as a not‐for‐profit organization in 1992 to provide a resource for the gathering and circulating of current information on all primary brain tumors, benign and malignant, for the purposes of:
•
describing incidence and survival patterns
•
evaluating diagnosis and treatment
•
facilitating etiologic (causation) studies
•
establishing awareness of the disease
•
and, ultimately, for the prevention of all brain tumors.
State or regional tumor registries obtain information about brain tumor patients
from hospitals in their area. CBTRUS began by collection information from four registries that were already collecting data on benign and malignant brain tumors. Using their preliminary data, CBTRUS conducted studies to determine diagnostic accuracy and data completeness. They now have the voluntary collaboration of 15 state registries, and encourage other population‐based registries that collect data on benign and malignant brain tumors to contact them about their efforts. The data collected is used to define incidence roles of all primary brain tumors, and can be used by researchers to identify geographic clusters of patients.
CBTRUS joined the North American Brain Tumor Coalition in supporting federal legislation (Public Law 107‐260) that passed in October 2002 that enables government funded surveillance organizations to collect data on primary benign bran tumors beginning in 2004.
Please visit the Web site of the Central Brain Tumor Registry at www.cbtrus.org. For more information or additional statistical data on primary brain tumors, contact CBTRUS at 3333 W. 47th St., Chicago, Illinois 60632. Phone. 630‐655‐4786.
Web: www.cbtrus.org
MOBILE MARKETING
Create Your Own Mobile Website And Go Mobile With Mobile Advertising!


Click Here!

Empire Avenue
If you wish to donate…
FREE Twitter Guide

Click here for your FREE AppsNewbie Twitter Guide

computers
invention
marijuana
stocks
Categories
Search