Sara Ghaderi1, Anders Engeland2,3, Maria Winther Gunnes3,4, Dag Moster2,3,4, Ellen Ruud5, Astri Syse6, Finn Wesenberg5,7,8, Tone Bjørge3,8. 1. Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Kalfarveien 31, 5018, Bergen, Norway. Sara.Ghaderi@fhi.no. 2. Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Kalfarveien 31, 5018, Bergen, Norway. 3. Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, 5018, Bergen, Norway. 4. Department of Paediatrics, Haukeland University Hospital, 5021, Bergen, Norway. 5. Department of Paediatric Medicine, Women and Children's Unit, Oslo University Hospital, 0316, Oslo, Norway. 6. Department of Research, Statistics Norway, 0033, Oslo, Norway. 7. Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, 0316, Oslo, Norway. 8. Cancer Registry of Norway, 0304, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The number of young cancer survivors has increased over the past few decades due to improvement in treatment regimens, and understanding of long-term effects among the survivors has become even more important. Educational achievements and choice of educational fields were explored here. METHODS: Five-year cancer survivors born in Norway during 1965-1985 (diagnosed <19 years) were included in our analysis by linking Norwegian population-based registries. Cox regression was applied to study the educational attainment among survivors of central nervous system (CNS) tumours, those assumed to have received CNS-directed therapy, and other cancer survivors relative to the cancer-free population. Logistic regression was used to compare the choice of educational fields between the cancer survivors at undergraduate and graduate level and the cancer-free population. RESULTS: Overall, a lower proportion of the cancer survivors completed intermediate (67 vs. 70 %), undergraduate (31 vs. 35 %) and graduate education (7 vs. 9 %) compared with the cancer-free population. Deficits in completion of an educational level were mainly observed among survivors of CNS-tumours and those assumed to have received CNS-directed therapy. Choices of educational fields among cancer survivors were in general similar with the cancer-free population at both undergraduate and graduate levels. CONCLUSION: Survivors of CNS-tumours and those assumed to have received CNS-directed therapy were at increased risk for educational impairments compared with the cancer-free population. Choices of educational fields were in general similar. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Careful follow-up of the survivors of CNS-tumours and those assumed to have received CNS-directed therapy is important at each level of education.
PURPOSE: The number of young cancer survivors has increased over the past few decades due to improvement in treatment regimens, and understanding of long-term effects among the survivors has become even more important. Educational achievements and choice of educational fields were explored here. METHODS: Five-year cancer survivors born in Norway during 1965-1985 (diagnosed <19 years) were included in our analysis by linking Norwegian population-based registries. Cox regression was applied to study the educational attainment among survivors of central nervous system (CNS) tumours, those assumed to have received CNS-directed therapy, and other cancer survivors relative to the cancer-free population. Logistic regression was used to compare the choice of educational fields between the cancer survivors at undergraduate and graduate level and the cancer-free population. RESULTS: Overall, a lower proportion of the cancer survivors completed intermediate (67 vs. 70 %), undergraduate (31 vs. 35 %) and graduate education (7 vs. 9 %) compared with the cancer-free population. Deficits in completion of an educational level were mainly observed among survivors of CNS-tumours and those assumed to have received CNS-directed therapy. Choices of educational fields among cancer survivors were in general similar with the cancer-free population at both undergraduate and graduate levels. CONCLUSION: Survivors of CNS-tumours and those assumed to have received CNS-directed therapy were at increased risk for educational impairments compared with the cancer-free population. Choices of educational fields were in general similar. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Careful follow-up of the survivors of CNS-tumours and those assumed to have received CNS-directed therapy is important at each level of education.
Authors: Maria Lorenzi; Amy J McMillan; Linda S Siegel; Bruno D Zumbo; Victor Glickman; John J Spinelli; Karen J Goddard; Sheila L Pritchard; Paul C Rogers; Mary L McBride Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Arja H Harila-Saari; Päivi M Lähteenmäki; Eero Pukkala; Pentti Kyyrönen; Marjatta Lanning; Risto Sankila Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-08-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Cynthia A Gerhardt; Kathryn Vannatta; Kristin S Valerius; Judy Correll; Robert B Noll Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2007-03-09 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Fiona Schulte; Alicia S Kunin-Batson; Barbara A Olson-Bullis; Pia Banerjee; Matthew C Hocking; Laura Janzen; Lisa S Kahalley; Hayley Wroot; Caitlin Forbes; Kevin R Krull Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Jeanelle S Ali; Jason M Ashford; Michelle A Swain; Lana L Harder; Bonnie L Carlson-Green; Jonathan M Miller; Joanna Wallace; Ryan J Kaner; Catherine A Billups; Arzu Onar-Thomas; Thomas E Merchant; Amar Gajjar; Heather M Conklin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Katie A Devine; Salome Christen; Renée L Mulder; Morven C Brown; Lisa M Ingerski; Luzius Mader; Emma J Potter; Charlotte Sleurs; Adrienne S Viola; Susanna Waern; Louis S Constine; Melissa M Hudson; Leontien C M Kremer; Roderick Skinner; Gisela Michel; Jordan Gilleland Marchak; Fiona S M Schulte Journal: Cancer Date: 2022-04-18 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Maria W Gunnes; Rolv Terje Lie; Tone Bjørge; Astri Syse; Ellen Ruud; Finn Wesenberg; Dag Moster Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-08-12 Impact factor: 6.860