Ray M Merrill1, Erin Johnson2. 1. Department of Health Science, College of Life Sciences, Brigham Young University, 2063 Life Sciences Building, Provo, UT, 84604, USA. Ray_Merrill@byu.edu. 2. Department of Health Science, College of Life Sciences, Brigham Young University, 2063 Life Sciences Building, Provo, UT, 84604, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the paper is to assess the influence of marital status on conditional relative survival of cancer according to sex. METHODS: Analyses involved 779,978 males and 1,032,868 females diagnosed with 1 of 13 cancer types between 2000 and 2008, and followed through 2013. Data are from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Regression models were adjusted for age, sex, race, and tumor stage. RESULTS: Five-year relative survival conditional on years already survived is higher among married patients with less lethal cancers (oral cavity and pharynx, colon and rectum, breast, urinary bladder, kidney and renal pelvis, melanoma of the skin, thyroid, lymphoma). For more lethal cancers, married patients have similar (liver, lung and bronchus, pancreas, leukemia) or poorer (brain and other nervous system) cancer survival. Separated/divorced or widowed patients have the lowest conditional relative survival rates. For most cancers, 5-year cancer relative survival rates conditional on time already survived through 5 years approach 70 to 90% of that for the general population. The beneficial effect of marriage on survival decreases with years already survived. Superior conditional relative survival rates in females decrease with time already survived and are less pronounced in married patients. CONCLUSION: Five-year relative survival rates improve with time already survived. The benefits of marriage on conditional relative survival are greater for less lethal cancers. Greater 5-year conditional relative survival rates in females narrow with time already survived and are less pronounced in married patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Conditional relative survival rates of cancer can lead to more informed decisions and understanding regarding treatment and prognosis.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the paper is to assess the influence of marital status on conditional relative survival of cancer according to sex. METHODS: Analyses involved 779,978 males and 1,032,868 females diagnosed with 1 of 13 cancer types between 2000 and 2008, and followed through 2013. Data are from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Regression models were adjusted for age, sex, race, and tumor stage. RESULTS: Five-year relative survival conditional on years already survived is higher among married patients with less lethal cancers (oral cavity and pharynx, colon and rectum, breast, urinary bladder, kidney and renal pelvis, melanoma of the skin, thyroid, lymphoma). For more lethal cancers, married patients have similar (liver, lung and bronchus, pancreas, leukemia) or poorer (brain and other nervous system) cancer survival. Separated/divorced or widowed patients have the lowest conditional relative survival rates. For most cancers, 5-year cancer relative survival rates conditional on time already survived through 5 years approach 70 to 90% of that for the general population. The beneficial effect of marriage on survival decreases with years already survived. Superior conditional relative survival rates in females decrease with time already survived and are less pronounced in married patients. CONCLUSION: Five-year relative survival rates improve with time already survived. The benefits of marriage on conditional relative survival are greater for less lethal cancers. Greater 5-year conditional relative survival rates in females narrow with time already survived and are less pronounced in married patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Conditional relative survival rates of cancer can lead to more informed decisions and understanding regarding treatment and prognosis.
Authors: Candyce H Kroenke; Charles Quesenberry; Marilyn L Kwan; Carol Sweeney; Adrienne Castillo; Bette J Caan Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-11-10 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Candyce H Kroenke; Laura D Kubzansky; Eva S Schernhammer; Michelle D Holmes; Ichiro Kawachi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Helena Granstam Björneklett; Christina Lindemalm; Andreas Rosenblad; Marja-Leena Ojutkangas; Henry Letocha; Peter Strang; Leif Bergkvist Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2011-09-19 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: C Classen; L D Butler; C Koopman; E Miller; S DiMiceli; J Giese-Davis; P Fobair; R W Carlson; H C Kraemer; D Spiegel Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2001-05
Authors: Scarlett Lin Gomez; Susan Hurley; Alison J Canchola; Theresa H M Keegan; Iona Cheng; James D Murphy; Christina A Clarke; Sally L Glaser; María Elena Martínez Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-04-11 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Bridget A Oppong; Angel A Rolle; Amara Ndumele; Yaming Li; James L Fisher; Oindrila Bhattacharyya; Toyin Adeyanju; Electra D Paskett Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-09-24 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Begoña Campos-Balea; Javier de Castro Carpeño; Bartomeu Massutí; David Vicente-Baz; Diego Pérez Parente; Pedro Ruiz-Gracia; Leonardo Crama; Manuel Cobo Dols Journal: Thorac Cancer Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: A Y S Wong; T Frøslev; L Dearing; H J Forbes; A Mulick; K E Mansfield; R J Silverwood; A Kjaersgaard; H T Sørensen; L Smeeth; A Lewin; S A J Schmidt; S M Langan Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 9.302