OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate patterns of care for women with Stage 1A(1) and 1A(2) cervical cancer utilizing the SEER database. METHODS: Review of SEER data from 11 registries from 1990 to 1995 was performed. Data from 2358 women were reviewed and stratified by substage, ethnicity, type of therapy, and age. RESULTS: Three remarkable differences among subgroups were identified. (1) Among women >/=35 years of age, whites were more likely to have Stage 1A(1) cancer than blacks or Hispanics; OR (95% CI) = 1.56 (1. 05, 2.31) and 1.41 (1.04, 1.91), respectively. (2) Patients >/=35 years of age were more likely to undergo hysterectomy than younger patients both for 1A(1) and 1A(2) stages; OR (95% CI) = 2.31 (1.68, 3.19) and 2.78 (2.21, 3.50), respectively, with Mantel-Haenszel test of independence chi(2) = 102.9943, P value < 0.001. (3) Black and Hispanic women >/=35 years of age with 1A(2) disease were less likely to have a hysterectomy than whites. Only 15% of Hispanic patients and 9% of blacks over the age of 35 and with Stage 1A(2) were treated via hysterectomy, compared to 76% of white women. Differences in hysterectomies for <35 years of age, 1A(1) patients approached but did not reach statistical significance: blacks 36% versus Hispanic/whites 59%, P value = 0.07. CONCLUSIONS: Older white women were more likely to have cervical carcinoma diagnosed at an earlier stage (1A(1)) than age-matched blacks or Hispanics. Older patients, across all ethnic groups analyzed, were also more likely to be treated for both Stage 1A(1) and 1A(2) disease via hysterectomy than younger patients. Ethnic differences in the management of women with Stage 1A(2) cervical cancer do exist: older minority women are less likely to have a hysterectomy and more likely to be treated via fertility-sparing, less definitive procedures than whites. Copyright 1999 Academic Press.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate patterns of care for women with Stage 1A(1) and 1A(2) cervical cancer utilizing the SEER database. METHODS: Review of SEER data from 11 registries from 1990 to 1995 was performed. Data from 2358 women were reviewed and stratified by substage, ethnicity, type of therapy, and age. RESULTS: Three remarkable differences among subgroups were identified. (1) Among women >/=35 years of age, whites were more likely to have Stage 1A(1) cancer than blacks or Hispanics; OR (95% CI) = 1.56 (1. 05, 2.31) and 1.41 (1.04, 1.91), respectively. (2) Patients >/=35 years of age were more likely to undergo hysterectomy than younger patients both for 1A(1) and 1A(2) stages; OR (95% CI) = 2.31 (1.68, 3.19) and 2.78 (2.21, 3.50), respectively, with Mantel-Haenszel test of independence chi(2) = 102.9943, P value < 0.001. (3) Black and Hispanic women >/=35 years of age with 1A(2) disease were less likely to have a hysterectomy than whites. Only 15% of Hispanic patients and 9% of blacks over the age of 35 and with Stage 1A(2) were treated via hysterectomy, compared to 76% of white women. Differences in hysterectomies for <35 years of age, 1A(1) patients approached but did not reach statistical significance: blacks 36% versus Hispanic/whites 59%, P value = 0.07. CONCLUSIONS: Older white women were more likely to have cervical carcinoma diagnosed at an earlier stage (1A(1)) than age-matched blacks or Hispanics. Older patients, across all ethnic groups analyzed, were also more likely to be treated for both Stage 1A(1) and 1A(2) disease via hysterectomy than younger patients. Ethnic differences in the management of women with Stage 1A(2) cervical cancer do exist: older minority women are less likely to have a hysterectomy and more likely to be treated via fertility-sparing, less definitive procedures than whites. Copyright 1999 Academic Press.
Authors: Robert W Haile; Esther M John; A Joan Levine; Victoria K Cortessis; Jennifer B Unger; Melissa Gonzales; Elad Ziv; Patricia Thompson; Donna Spruijt-Metz; Katherine L Tucker; Jonine L Bernstein; Thomas E Rohan; Gloria Y F Ho; Melissa L Bondy; Maria Elena Martinez; Linda Cook; Mariana C Stern; Marcia Cruz Correa; Jonelle Wright; Seth J Schwartz; Lourdes Baezconde-Garbanati; Victoria Blinder; Patricia Miranda; Richard Hayes; George Friedman-Jiménez; Kristine R Monroe; Christopher A Haiman; Brian E Henderson; Duncan C Thomas; Paolo Boffetta Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2012-02
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Tamara Dumanovsky; Kala Visvanathan; Amy R Kahn; Maria J Schymura Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2010-06-03 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: T Clark Powell; Sarah E Dilley; Sejong Bae; J Michael Straughn; Kenneth H Kim; Charles A Leath Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Kimberly L Levinson; Robert E Bristow; Pamela K Donohue; Norma F Kanarek; Cornelia L Trimble Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-05-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Sujana Movva; Anne-Michelle Noone; Mousumi Banerjee; Divya A Patel; Kendra Schwartz; Cecilia L Yee; Michael S Simon Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Shaina F Bruce; Tanvi V Joshi; Inna Chervoneva; Misung Yi; Sudeshna Chatterjee-Paer; Elizabeth R Burton; Mitchell I Edelson; Joel I Sorosky; Mark S Shahin Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 7.623