Jason D Wright1, Ling Chen2, Ana I Tergas3, William M Burke4, June Y Hou4, Alfred I Neugut5, Cande V Ananth6, Dawn L Hershman5. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY; New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY. Electronic address: jw2459@columbia.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY; Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY; New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY; New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY. 5. Department of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY; Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY; New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY; Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: While the last 3 decades have seen numerous advances in the treatment of cervical cancer, it remains unclear if population-level survival has improved. We examined relative survival, the ratio of survival in cervical cancer patients to matched controls over time. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with cervical cancer diagnosed from 1983 through 2009 and recorded in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database were examined. Survival models were adjusted for age, race, stage, year of diagnosis, and time since diagnosis. Changes in stage-specific relative survival for patients with cervical cancer compared to the general population matched by age, race, and calendar year were examined over time. RESULTS: A total of 46,932 patients were identified. For women with stage I tumors, the excess hazard ratio for women diagnosed in 2009 was 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-0.95) compared to 2000, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.73-0.91) compared to 1990, and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.64-0.88) compared to 1983. For patients with stage III tumors, the excess hazard ratios for patients diagnosed in 2009 (relative to those diagnosed in 2000, 1990, and 1983) were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.80-0.87), 0.68 (95% CI, 0.62-0.75), and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.52-0.68). Similar trends in improved survival over time were noted for women with stage II tumors. There were no statistically significant improvements in relative survival over time for women with stage IV tumors. CONCLUSION: Relative survival has improved over time for women with stage I-III cervical cancer, but has changed little for those with metastatic disease.
OBJECTIVE: While the last 3 decades have seen numerous advances in the treatment of cervical cancer, it remains unclear if population-level survival has improved. We examined relative survival, the ratio of survival in cervical cancerpatients to matched controls over time. STUDY DESIGN:Patients with cervical cancer diagnosed from 1983 through 2009 and recorded in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database were examined. Survival models were adjusted for age, race, stage, year of diagnosis, and time since diagnosis. Changes in stage-specific relative survival for patients with cervical cancer compared to the general population matched by age, race, and calendar year were examined over time. RESULTS: A total of 46,932 patients were identified. For women with stage I tumors, the excess hazard ratio for women diagnosed in 2009 was 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-0.95) compared to 2000, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.73-0.91) compared to 1990, and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.64-0.88) compared to 1983. For patients with stage III tumors, the excess hazard ratios for patients diagnosed in 2009 (relative to those diagnosed in 2000, 1990, and 1983) were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.80-0.87), 0.68 (95% CI, 0.62-0.75), and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.52-0.68). Similar trends in improved survival over time were noted for women with stage II tumors. There were no statistically significant improvements in relative survival over time for women with stage IV tumors. CONCLUSION: Relative survival has improved over time for women with stage I-III cervical cancer, but has changed little for those with metastatic disease.
Authors: Erin M George; Ana I Tergas; Cande V Ananth; William M Burke; Sharyn N Lewin; Eri Prendergast; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: G Gatta; R Capocaccia; T Hakulinen; M Sant; A Verdecchia; G De Angelis; A Micheli; F Berrino Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: M Morris; P J Eifel; J Lu; P W Grigsby; C Levenback; R E Stevens; M Rotman; D M Gershenson; D G Mutch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-04-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: P G Rose; B N Bundy; E B Watkins; J T Thigpen; G Deppe; M A Maiman; D L Clarke-Pearson; S Insalaco Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-04-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: F Landoni; A Maneo; A Colombo; F Placa; R Milani; P Perego; G Favini; L Ferri; C Mangioni Journal: Lancet Date: 1997-08-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Krishnansu S Tewari; Michael W Sill; Harry J Long; Richard T Penson; Helen Huang; Lois M Ramondetta; Lisa M Landrum; Ana Oaknin; Thomas J Reid; Mario M Leitao; Helen E Michael; Bradley J Monk Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: H M Keys; B N Bundy; F B Stehman; L I Muderspach; W E Chafe; C L Suggs; J L Walker; D Gersell Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-04-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Vicki B Benard; Meg Watson; Mona Saraiya; Rhea Harewood; Julie S Townsend; Antoinette M Stroup; Hannah K Weir; Claudia Allemani Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Hilda Razzaghi; Mona Saraiya; Trevor D Thompson; S Jane Henley; Laura Viens; Reda Wilson Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 6.860