|
| ||
|
|
||
Cancer Patient Survival (cancer + patient_survival)
Selected AbstractsCancer survival in Germany and the United States at the beginning of the 21st century: An up-to-date comparison by period analysisINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER, Issue 2 2007Adam Gondos Abstract Transatlantic cancer survival comparisons are scarce and involve mostly aggregate European data from the late 1980s. We compare the levels of cancer patient survival achieved in Germany and the United States (US) by the beginning of the 21st century, using data from the Cancer Registry of Saarland/Germany and the SEER Program of the US. Age-adjusted 5- and 10-year relative survival for 23 common forms of cancer derived by period analysis for the 2000,2002 period were calculated, with additional detailed age- and stage-specific analyses for cancers with the highest incidence. Among the 23 cancer sites, 5 (10) year relative survival was significantly higher for 1 (2) and 8 (5) cancers in Germany and the US, respectively. In Germany, survival was significantly higher for patients with stomach cancer, whereas survival was higher in the US for patients with breast, cervical, prostate, colorectal and oral cavity cancer. Among the most common cancers, age-specific survival differences were particularly pronounced for older patients with breast, colorectal and prostate cancer. Survival advantages of breast cancer patients in the US were mainly due to more favorable stage distributions. This comprehensive survival comparison between Germany and the US suggests that although survival was similar for the majority of the compared cancer sites, long-term prognosis of patients continues to be better in the US for many of the most common forms of cancer. Among these, differences between patients with breast and prostate cancer are probably due to more intensive screening activities. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source] Interpreting trends in cancer patient survivalJOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, Issue 2 2006P. W. DICKMAN Abstract Data on cancer patient survival are an invaluable tool in the evaluation of therapeutic progress against cancer as well as other lethal diseases. As with all quantitative information routinely used in evidence-based clinical management , including diagnostic tests, prognostic markers and comparisons of therapeutic interventions , data on patient survival require evaluation based on an understanding of the underlying statistical methodology, methods of data collection and classification, and, most notably, clinical and biologic insight. This article contains an introduction to the methods used for estimating cancer patient survival, including cause-specific survival, relative survival and period analysis. The methods, and their interpretation, are illustrated through presentation of trends in incidence, mortality and patient survival for a range of different cancers. Our aim was to lay out the strengths and limitations of survival analysis as a tool in the evaluation of progress in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. [source] Erythropoiesis stimulating agents are associated with reduced survival in patients with multiple myeloma,AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY, Issue 9 2008Eirini Katodritou The impact of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) on cancer patients' survival has recently become a matter of extensive discussion. Studies in solid tumors demonstrated that ESA adversely affects survival. This issue has not been sufficiently studied in patients with multiple myeloma. In this study, which included 323 multiple myeloma patients followed in our Institution between 1988 and 2007, we demonstrated by using a proportional hazards model including multiple covariates (age, LDH, Hb, platelets, serum creatinine, ISS score, ,2 microglobulin, and ESA administration) that ESA administration is associated with reduced survival (hazards ratio: 1.88, 95% CI: 1.28,2.77). Anemia, which is considered a predictor for survival, platelets, serum creatinine, ISS score, and LDH, were not significant, whereas, age and ,2 microglobulin confirmed their predicting value in the multivariate analysis. With a median follow-up of 31 months (range 1,238), the median survival of patients in the ESA group was 31 months (95% CI: 25,37), whereas in the group without ESA administration it was 67 months (95% CI: 55,79) (P < 0.001). The median progression-free survival for patients in the ESA group was 14 months (95% CI: 12,16), and for the group without ESA it was 30 months (95% CI: 24,36) (P < 0.001). These results indicate that ESA may have a detrimental impact on MM patients' outcomes and, thus, in this context, they should be used with rigorous criteria. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc. Am. J. Hematol., 2008. [source] | ||||||||||