Literature DB >> 21300926

Adverse prognostic factors for testicular cancer-specific survival: a population-based study of 27,948 patients.

Sophie D Fosså1, Milada Cvancarova, Linlin Chen, Annie L Allan, Jan Oldenburg, Derick R Peterson, Lois B Travis.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The prognostic significance of age at testicular cancer (TC) diagnosis, socioeconomic status (SES), race, and marital status on TC-specific mortality is not well-characterized. In a cancer that is so curable, it is important to identify any influence that confers an increased risk of TC-specific mortality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using multivariate cause-specific Cox regression models that accounted for competing risks, hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for 10-year TC-specific mortality among 27,948 patients with TC reported to the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program (1978 to 2006). Independent predictors were age at diagnosis, SES, race, marital status, extent of disease (EOD), calendar year of diagnosis, radiotherapy, and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND).
RESULTS: Compared with younger patients, diagnostic age 40+ was associated with increased mortality (seminoma, HR, 2.00, P < .001; nonseminoma, HR, 2.09; P < .001; most evident in metastatic disease, HR, 8.62; P < .001; HR, 6.35; P < .001, respectively). Unmarried men had two-to three-fold excess mortality compared to married men (HR, 2.97; P < .001; HR, 1.54; P < .001, respectively). Among nonseminoma patients, decreasing SES (P trend < .001) and nonwhite race (HR, 2.11; P < .001) increased mortality. Diagnosis after 1987 resulted in reduced mortality compared to earlier calendar years (HR, 0.58; P = .001; HR, 0.74; P = .001, respectively). Lack of RPLND was associated with seven-fold increase in death (P < .001).
CONCLUSION: TC-specific mortality is doubled among US patients diagnosed with seminoma or nonseminoma after age 40, even when initial treatment and EOD are taken into account. Among men with nonseminoma, nonwhite race and lower SES also significantly increase TC-specific mortality. Additional research is needed, enabling the development of interventional strategies and preventive approaches, as applicable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21300926     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.3204

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  40 in total

1.  Survival impact of malignant pancreatic neuroendocrine and islet cell neoplasm phenotypes.

Authors:  Christina L Roland; Aihua Bian; John C Mansour; Adam C Yopp; Glen C Balch; Rohit Sharma; Xian-Jin Xie; Roderich E Schwarz
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-10-17       Impact factor: 3.454

Review 2.  Cancer survivorship research in Europe and the United States: where have we been, where are we going, and what can we learn from each other?

Authors:  Julia H Rowland; Erin E Kent; Laura P Forsythe; Jon Håvard Loge; Lars Hjorth; Adam Glaser; Vittorio Mattioli; Sophie D Fosså
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-06-01       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Unmarried status is a barrier for access to treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Giuseppe Rosiello; Sophie Knipper; Carlotta Palumbo; Cristina Dzyuba-Negrean; Angela Pecoraro; Elio Mazzone; Francesco A Mistretta; Zhe Tian; Umberto Capitanio; Francesco Montorsi; Shahrokh F Shariat; Fred Saad; Alberto Briganti; Pierre I Karakiewicz
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2019-08-29       Impact factor: 2.370

4.  Prognostic impact of LDH levels in patients with relapsed/refractory seminoma.

Authors:  Tom Powles; Caroline Bascoul-Mollevi; Andrew Kramar; Anja Lorch; Jörg Beyer
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-05-03       Impact factor: 4.553

5.  Incorporating non-biological factors into the TNM staging system for better prognostication and decision-making in testicular cancer.

Authors:  Yongqiang Huang; Haoyue Sheng; Junyu Zhang; Qi Liu; Dingwei Ye; Guohai Shi
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-12-15       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Multi-Institutional Assessment of Adverse Health Outcomes Among North American Testicular Cancer Survivors After Modern Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy.

Authors:  Chunkit Fung; Howard D Sesso; Annalynn M Williams; Sarah L Kerns; Patrick Monahan; Mohammad Abu Zaid; Darren R Feldman; Robert J Hamilton; David J Vaughn; Clair J Beard; Christian K Kollmannsberger; Ryan Cook; Sandra Althouse; Shirin Ardeshir-Rouhani-Fard; Steve E Lipshultz; Lawrence H Einhorn; Sophie D Fossa; Lois B Travis
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-02-27       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Survival after a diagnosis of testicular germ cell cancers in Germany and the United States, 2002-2006: a high resolution study by histology and age.

Authors:  A Stang; L Jansen; B Trabert; C Rusner; A Eberle; A Katalinic; K Emrich; B Holleczek; H Brenner
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2013-04-23       Impact factor: 2.984

Review 8.  Testicular cancer: a narrative review of the role of socioeconomic position from risk to survivorship.

Authors:  Lisa C Richardson; Antonio J Neri; Eric Tai; Jeffrey D Glenn
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2011-11-27       Impact factor: 3.498

9.  Practice Patterns and Impact of Postchemotherapy Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection on Testicular Cancer Outcomes.

Authors:  Solomon L Woldu; Joseph A Moore; Bo Ci; Yuval Freifeld; Timothy N Clinton; Ahmet M Aydin; Nirmish Singla; Krabbe Laura-Maria; Ryan C Hutchinson; James F Amatruda; Arthur Sagalowsky; Yair Lotan; Yull Arriaga; Vitaly Margulis; Yang Xie; Aditya Bagrodia
Journal:  Eur Urol Oncol       Date:  2018-06-06

10.  Risk factors for relapse in patients with clinical stage I testicular nonseminomatous germ cell tumors.

Authors:  Pei Dong; Zhuo-Wei Liu; Xiang-Dong Li; Yong-Hong Li; Kai Yao; Song Wu; Zi-Ke Qin; Hui Han; Fang-Jian Zhou
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 3.064

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.