Literature DB >> 12376210

Age-specific differences in treatment and survival of patients with cervical cancer in the southeast of The Netherlands, 1986-1996.

J M de Rijke1, H W H M van der Putten, L C H W Lutgens, A C Voogd, R F P M Kruitwagen, J A A M van Dijck, L J Schouten.   

Abstract

Age at diagnosis has been proven to be an important determinant of the choice of initial treatment for several sites of cancer. Elderly patients are more likely to receive no treatment or less intensive treatment modalities. This study analysed the influence of age on treatment choice and survival in patients diagnosed with cervical cancer. This population-based study used data on 1176 new cases of invasive cervical cancer diagnosed in the period of 1986-1996 from three regional cancer registries in the Netherlands. All available information on treatment and survival (on 1 January 1998) was recorded. Relative survival rates were calculated according to the Hakulinen method. Relative risks (RR) for excess mortality due to the diagnosis of cervical cancer were calculated with a regression model for relative survival rates. Only 5% of the patients aged 70 years and older (n=224) were diagnosed with stage IA disease, compared with 11 and 30% of the patients aged 50-69 years and 49 years and younger, respectively. Almost 50% of the 70+ patients with stage IB-IIA were treated with radiotherapy as a single treatment modality, whereas 64% of the patients aged < or =49 years were treated with surgery alone. In all age groups, treatment for advanced stage disease (stage > or =IIB) was radiotherapy alone. No treatment was given to 10% of the patients aged 70 years and older, 5% of those aged 50-69 years and 1% of those aged 49 years and younger. Five-year relative survival was 69% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 66-72%) and differed significantly (P=0.001) with age (70+ years: 49%; 50-69 years 58%; < or =49 years: 81%). Multivariate analyses on a subset of patients showed that age was not an independent prognostic factor, whereas stage and treatment modality were very important prognostic factors. Although elderly cancer patients were sometimes treated differently from younger patients, this was in accordance with the guidelines. Relative survival rates differed significantly by age. The multivariate analyses on the subset of patients also revealed that excess mortality increased with age. However, when adjustment was made for stage and treatment, this difference disappeared. The influence of treatment on survival is likely to be due to the selection of patients based on other characteristics, such as tumour volume, comorbidity and performance status.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12376210     DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(02)00315-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  13 in total

1.  Management of elderly women with cervical cancer.

Authors:  Holm Eggemann; Tanja Ignatov; Christina Henrike Geyken; Stephan Seitz; Atanas Ignatov
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-03-02       Impact factor: 4.553

2.  Changes in prevalence and clinical characteristics of cervical cancer in the People's Republic of China: a study of 10,012 cases from a nationwide working group.

Authors:  Shuang Li; Ting Hu; Weiguo Lv; Hang Zhou; Xiong Li; Ru Yang; Yao Jia; Kecheng Huang; Zhilan Chen; Shaoshuai Wang; Fangxu Tang; Qinghua Zhang; Jian Shen; Jin Zhou; Ling Xi; Dongrui Deng; Hui Wang; Shixuan Wang; Xing Xie; Ding Ma
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2013-09-16

3.  Cervical Cancer in Young Women: Do They Have a Worse Prognosis? A Retrospective Cohort Analysis in a Population of Mexico.

Authors:  David Isla-Ortiz; Elizabeth Palomares-Castillo; José Emilio Mille-Loera; Nora Ramírez-Calderón; Alejandro Mohar-Betancourt; Abelardo A Meneses-García; Nancy Reynoso-Noverón
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2020-05-28

4.  Radiotherapy for Japanese elderly patients with cervical cancer: preliminary survival outcomes and evaluation of treatment-related toxicity.

Authors:  Kenji Yoshida; Ryohei Sasaki; Hideki Nishimura; Daisuke Miyawaki; Tetsuya Kawabe; Yoshiaki Okamoto; Koji Nakabayashi; Shigeki Yoshida; Kazuro Sugimura
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2010-11-30       Impact factor: 2.344

5.  Comparing bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccines: economic evaluation based on transmission model.

Authors:  Mark Jit; Ruth Chapman; Owain Hughes; Yoon Hong Choi
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-09-27

6.  Optimising surgical management of elderly cancer patients.

Authors:  Hodigere Sripathy Jois Ramesh; Daniel Pope; Roberto Gennari; Riccardo A Audisio
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2005-03-23       Impact factor: 2.754

7.  Estimating the long-term impact of a prophylactic human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine on the burden of cervical cancer in the UK.

Authors:  M Kohli; N Ferko; A Martin; E L Franco; D Jenkins; S Gallivan; C Sherlaw-Johnson; M Drummond
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2006-12-05       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Incidence of cervical cancer after several negative smear results by age 50: prospective observational study.

Authors:  Matejka Rebolj; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Elsebeth Lynge; Caspar Looman; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Rob Boer; Dik Habbema
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-04-24

9.  Economic evaluation of human papillomavirus vaccination in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  Mark Jit; Yoon Hong Choi; W John Edmunds
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-07-17

Review 10.  Risk assessment for cancer surgery in elderly patients.

Authors:  Hodigere S J Ramesh; Tom Boase; Riccardo A Audisio
Journal:  Clin Interv Aging       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.458

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.