Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (25)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by HAYASHI, K.
Right arrow Articles by HELLENBRAND, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by HAYASHI, K.
Right arrow Articles by HELLENBRAND, K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 115, No. 1: 67-77
Copyright © 1982 by The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health

research-article

HYDATIDIFORM MOLE IN THE UNITED STATES (1970–1977): A STATISTICAL AND THEORETICAL ANALYSIS1

KENJI HAYASHI, MICHAEL B. BRACKEN2, DANIEL H. FREEMAN, JR. and KAREN HELLENBRAND

2Reprint requests to Dr. Bracken, Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, 60 College St., New Haven, CT 06510

The incidence of hydatidiform mole and some epidemiologic features of the disease in the United States were studied. Data for the present study were obtained from the Hospital Discharge Survey (1970–1977) of the National Center for Health Statistics. The estimated incidence of hydatidiform mole over the eight-year period was 108.4 per 100,000 pregnancies (SE = 10.3) or one case in every 923 pregnancies. There was an apparent increase in the incidence rate from 1970 to 1975, but the rate dropped slightly after 1975. The distribution of hydatidiform mole by maternal age showed the highest rate among women 35 years and older, and the second highest rate among women aged 15–19. The distribution by maternal age found for the entire sample was also apparent within each race category. Overall, black women appeared to have an incidence rate half that of white women. Regional differences in the United States were observed in spite of race and age adjustment. Existing studies are reviewed in light of morphologic and cytogenetic classification schemes and a recent hypothesis for the androgenetic origin of hydatidiform mole. A fresh approach to the epidemiology of hydatidiform mole which com bines epidemiologic and genetic studies is indicated.

hydatidiform mole; pregnancy

From the Departments of Epidemiology and Public Health, and Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yale University School of Medicine.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 NEJMHome page
J. A. Tabas, M. Strehlow, and E. Isaacs
A False Negative Pregnancy Test in a Patient with a Hydatidiform Molar Pregnancy
N. Engl. J. Med., November 27, 2003; 349(22): 2172 - 2173.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
H. Matsui, Y. Iitsuka, K. Yamazawa, N. Tanaka, K. Seki, and S. Sekiya
Changes in the incidence of molar pregnancies. A population-based study in Chiba Prefecture and Japan between 1974 and 2000
Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2003; 18(1): 172 - 175.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
J. R. Palmer, S. G. Driscoll, L. Rosenberg, R. S. Berkowitz, J. R. Lurain, J. Soper, L. B. Twiggs, D. M. Gershenson, E. I. Kohorn, M. Berman, et al.
Oral Contraceptive Use and Risk of Gestational Trophoblastic Tumors
J Natl Cancer Inst, April 7, 1999; 91(7): 635 - 640.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Pediatr Adolesc MedHome page
J. C. Sanchez and J. E. Sanchez
Pathological Case of the Month
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, August 1, 1998; 152(8): 827 - 828.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
W. Cates Jr, J. C. Smith, R. W. Rochat, and D. A. Grimes
Mortality From Abortion and Childbirth: Are the Statistics Biased?
JAMA, July 9, 1982; 248(2): 192 - 196.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.