Literature DB >> 14522381

Differences in colorectal cancer survival between European and US populations: the importance of sub-site and morphology.

G Gatta1, L Ciccolallo, R Capocaccia, M P Coleman, T Hakulinen, H Møller, F Berrino.   

Abstract

A previous study has shown a lower survival for colorectal cancer in Europe than in the United States of America (USA). It is of interest to examine the extent to which anatomical location and morphological type influence this difference in colorectal cancer survival. We analysed survival for 151,244 European and 53,884 US patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer aged 15-99 years during the period of 1985-1989, obtained from 40 cancer registries that contribute to the EUROCARE study from 17 countries, and nine Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results (SEER) registries in the USA. Cases included in the analysis were first primary malignant tumours (ICD-O behaviour code 3 or higher). Relative survival was estimated to correct for competing causes of mortality. The Hakulinen-Tenkanen multiple regression approach was used to examine the prognostic impact of sub-site and ICD-O histology codes. Relative excess risks (RERs) derived from this approach estimate the extent to which the hazard of death differs from that in a reference region after adjustment for mortality in the general population. In order to explore geographical variation, we defined three groups of European registries within which survival rates were known to be broadly similar. The proportion of cases with unspecified sub-site was higher in Europe than the USA (10% versus 2%), but sub-site distributions were broadly similar in the two populations. With the exception of appendix, 5-year survival was 13-22% higher in the USA than in Europe for each anatomical sub-site. The proportion of non-microscopically-verified cases was higher in Europe than the USA (16 versus 3%). Adenocarcinomas arising in a polyp (ICD-O-2 8210, 8261, 8263) were more frequent in the USA than Europe (13 versus 2%). Five-year survival was higher in the USA than Europe for each morphological group, with the exception of non-microscopically-verified cases. When age, gender and sub-site were considered, RERs ranged from 1.52 to 2.40 for the European populations (with the USA as a reference). After inclusion of morphology codes, the range of RERs fell to between 1.28 and 1.86, mainly because of the high frequency of adenocarcinoma in polyps in the USA. This analysis suggests that the large survival advantage for colorectal cancer patients in the USA can only marginally be explained by differences in the distribution of sub-site and morphology. The main explanatory difference is the proportion of adenocarcinoma in polyps.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14522381     DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(03)00549-5

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


  36 in total

Review 1.  Endoscopic mucosal resection: an evolving therapeutic strategy for non-polypoid colorectal neoplasia.

Authors:  R Kiesslich; M F Neurath
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  Colorectal cancer screening coverage in Greece. PACMeR 02.01 study collaboration.

Authors:  Konstantinos Kamposioras; Davide Mauri; Vassilis Golfinopoulos; Georgios Ferentinos; Georgios Zacharias; Apostolos Xilomenos; Nikolaos P Polyzos; Magdalini Bristianou; Dimitra Chasioti; Athanasios Milousis; Angeliki Vittoraki; Georgios Koukourakis; Ioanna Chatziioannou; Panagiotis Papadopoulos
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2006-08-29       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Microsatellite instability did not predict individual survival of unselected patients with colorectal cancer.

Authors:  C Lamberti; S Lundin; M Bogdanow; C Pagenstecher; N Friedrichs; R Büttner; T Sauerbruch
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2006-05-25       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  A comparative study of degree of colorectal distention with manual air insufflation or automated CO(2) insufflation at CT colonography as a preoperative examination.

Authors:  Hidenori Kanazawa; Kenichi Utano; Shigeyoshi Kijima; Takahiro Sasaki; Yasuyuki Miyakura; Hisanaga Horie; Yoshikazu Nakamura; Hideharu Sugimoto
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2014-03-21       Impact factor: 2.374

5.  The dynamics of colorectal cancer management in 17 countries.

Authors:  Panos Kanavos; Willemien Schurer
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2010-01

6.  A retrospective analysis of 2000 cases with colorectal carcinoma.

Authors:  G Basdanis; A Mekras; V N Papadopoulos; E Karamanlis; D Paramythiotis; D Mekras; D Panagiotou; S Panidis; A Michalopoulos
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 3.781

7.  Baseline mortality-adjusted survival in colon cancer patients.

Authors:  Kristjan Ukegjini; Marcel Zadnikar; Rene Warschkow; Sascha Müller; Bruno M Schmied; Lukas Marti
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 3.445

8.  New structural analogues of curcumin exhibit potent growth suppressive activity in human colorectal carcinoma cells.

Authors:  Ling Cen; Brian Hutzen; Sarah Ball; Stephanie DeAngelis; Chun-Liang Chen; James R Fuchs; Chenglong Li; Pui-Kai Li; Jiayuh Lin
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2009-03-30       Impact factor: 4.430

9.  Survival of metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with chemotherapy in Alberta (1995-2004).

Authors:  Yiqun Chen; Zhenguo Qiu; Anmmd Kamruzzaman; Tom Snodgrass; Andrew Scarfe; Heather E Bryant
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2009-05-15       Impact factor: 3.603

10.  The risk of colorectal cancer with symptoms at different ages and between the sexes: a case-control study.

Authors:  William Hamilton; Robert Lancashire; Debbie Sharp; Tim J Peters; Kk Cheng; Tom Marshall
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2009-04-17       Impact factor: 8.775

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.