Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:41:58.151Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technology Assessment in the Connecticut Tumor Registry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Grace Wyshak ,
Elisabeth Burdick  and
Frederick Mosteller
Grace Wyshak
Affiliation:
Harvard School of Public Health
Elisabeth Burdick
Affiliation:
Harvard School of Public Health
Frederick Mosteller
Affiliation:
Harvard School of Public Health
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A search of literature using the Connecticut Tumor Registry (CTR) for technology assessment produced eight articles. These articles represent a small but apparently increasing percentage (2%) of total CTR publications. By keeping pace with the development and dissemination of medical technologies, the population-based CTR has been useful for assessing them, especially their adverse effects.

Type
Special Section: The Contribution Of Medical Registries To Technology Assessment
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , Spring 1991 , pp. 129 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Boice, J. D., Day, N. E., Anderson, A., et al. Second cancers following radiation treatment for cervical cancer. An international collaboration among cancer registries. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1985, 74, 955–75.Google Scholar
2.Eisenberg, H., & Connelly, R. R.Some preliminary data on the postmastectomy treatment of female breast cancer in Connecticut. Connecticut Medicine, 1967, 31, 193–97.Google ScholarPubMed
3.Hadjimichael, O. C, Meigs, J. W., Falcier, F. W., et al. Cancer risk among women exposed to exogenous estrogens during pregnancy. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1984, 73, 831–34.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Harvey, E. B., Boice, J. D., Honeyman, M, & Flannery, J. T.Prenatal x-ray exposure and childhood cancer in twins. New England Journal of Medicine, 1985, 312, 541–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Heston, J. F.Forty-five years of cancer incidence in Connecticut, 1935-1979. In National Cancer Institute Monograph 70, NIH Publication No. 86-2652, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 1986.Google Scholar
6.Kleinerman, R. A., Curtis, R. E., Boice, J. D., et al. Second cancers following radiotherapy for cervical cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1982, 69, 1027–33.Google Scholar
7.Marrett, L. D., Meigs, J. W., & Flannery, J. T.Trends in the incidence of cancer of the corpus uteri in Connecticut, 1964-1979, in relation to consumption of exogenous estrogens. American Journal of Epidemiology, 1982, 116, 57–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Ryan, A. J., Curry, J., & Eisenberg, H.Castration following radical mastectomy for breast cancer. Connecticut Medicine, 1962, 26, 71–78.Google Scholar
9.Shimkin, M. B., Griswold, M. H., & Cutler, S. J.Survival in untreated and treated cancer. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1956, 45, 255–67.Google Scholar