Literature DB >> 30532589

Influence of marital status on small intestinal adenocarcinoma survival: an analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.

Zhihui Chen1, Ji Cui1, Weigang Dai1, Hong Yang2, Yulong He1, Xinming Song1.   

Abstract

AIM: No studies have been published on the relationship between marital status and outcomes in small intestinal cancers. The present study was conducted to explore the influence of marital status on small intestinal adenocarcinoma survival based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.
METHODS: Data from eligible patients diagnosed with small intestinal adenocarcinoma between 2004 and 2015 were extracted from the SEER database. Patients were categorized into married group (including common law) and unmarried group (including single [never married], widowed, divorced, separated, and unmarried or domestic partner). The primary endpoints were 5-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS). A survival curve was generated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and the survival rate differences were estimated by a log-rank test. A multivariate Cox proportional hazard model was used to evaluate the independent risk factors for survival.
RESULTS: A total of 6,747 small intestinal adenocarcinoma patients were enrolled, including 3,862 married and 2,885 unmarried patients. The 5-year OS and 5-year CSS were significantly greater in married patients than in unmarried patients (27.1 vs 18.8% for OS and 45.7 vs 39.3% for CSS, both P<0.001). After adjusting for age, insurance status, tumor primary site, TNM stage, tumor grade, tumor histology, and surgery, the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model showed that marriage is an independent protective factor for OS (HR =0.789, 95% CI: 0.745-0.836, P<0.001) and CSS (HR =0.794, 95% CI: 0.736-0.857, P<0.001).
CONCLUSION: Married small intestinal adenocarcinoma patients have better OS and CSS than unmarried patients. Psychological and economic supports from the spouses of married patients may contribute to improvements in survival.

Entities:  

Keywords:  adenocarcinomas; marriage; prognosis; small bowel

Year:  2018        PMID: 30532589      PMCID: PMC6241733          DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S177430

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Manag Res        ISSN: 1179-1322            Impact factor:   3.989


Introduction

Small intestine cancers are uncommon malignancies of the digestive system. In 2018, an estimated 10,470 new small intestine cancer cases and 1,450 deaths will occur in USA.1 Adenocarcinoma, the second most common histological subtype, accounts for 36.9% of small intestine cancers.2 Other common histological subtypes included carcinoids, lymphomas, and stromal tumors.2–5 Due to the relative rarity of small intestinal cancers, few large-scale population-based studies have been conducted. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database includes almost all cancer incidence, prevalence, tumor pathology, and demographic data, such as age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, and prognosis.6 Some known prognostic factors, such as race, tumor location, TNM stage, and number of retrieved lymph nodes, have been proposed by studies based on the SEER database.2,7–9 The protective effect of marriage on survival was inconsistent. Marital status was reported to be associated with survival in some cancers, such as renal cell carcinoma,10 head and neck cancers,11 squamous cell carcinoma of the penis,12 and rectal cancer.13 However, other studies could not find any protective effect of marriage on patients’ outcome.14,15 Previous study by Kato et al16 found that single females showed increased risks for small intestine cancers. However, no study has been published to evaluate the relationship between marital status and outcome in small intestinal cancers. Therefore, the present study was conducted to explore the influence of marital status on small intestinal adenocarcinoma survival based on the SEER database.

Methods

Patients

The SEER database (http://seer.cancer.gov) is the largest publicly available dataset and consists of 18 tumor registries coverinĝ26% of the US population. The de-identified data held by the SEER database were authorized to obtain in May 2018. The following inclusion criteria were adopted: 1) tumor histological type: mucinous adenocarcinoma (SEER histology codes 8480 and 8481), signet ring cell (SEER histology code 8490), and other carcinoma adenocarcinoma (SEER histology codes 8140, 8144, 8210, 8211, 8220, 8221, 8255, 8260, 8261, 8262, 8263, 8574, and 8576); 2) marital status known; and 3) survival data known. Tumor location was categorized by the following SEER cancer site codes: C17.0-duodenum, C17.1-jejunum, C17.2-ileum, C17.3-Meckel’s diverticulum, C17.8-overlapping lesion of small intestine, and c17.9-small intestine, not otherwise specified (NOS). Race classifications were “white” (race/ethnicity code, 1), “black” (race/ethnicity code, 2), and “others” (the remaining codes). The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) seventh TNM staging system was used.

Statistical analysis

Comparisons of categorical variables between married and unmarried patients were performed using the chi-squared test, and continuous variables were compared using the Student’s t-test. The primary endpoints were 5-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS). Survival curves were generated by the Kaplan–Meier method, and survival rate differences were estimated by a log-rank test. Variables with statistically significant differences were entered into a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model. HRs with 95% CIs were calculated for all the prognostic factors. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 23.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). P<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

Patient baseline characteristics

A total of 6,747 small intestinal adenocarcinoma patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 were enrolled, including 3,656 (54.2%) male and 3,091 (45.8%) female patients. Of these patients, the mean age of the whole population was 67.78±13.81 years (mean ± SD). Therefore, patients were divided into the following two groups according to age: <68 and ≥68 years. According to the SEER coding program, the marital status of patients with small intestinal adenocarcinoma was divided into married (including common law, N=3,862) and unmarried (including single [never married], widowed, divorced, separated, and unmarried or domestic partner, N=2,885).

Clinicopathological features of married and unmarried patients

As shown in Table 1, male patients were more prevalent in the married group than in the unmarried group (65.2 vs 39.5%, P<0.001). The mean age of married patients was significantly younger than that of unmarried patients (66.47±12.76 vs 69.54±14.93, P<0.001). Additionally, more Caucasians and patients with insurance/any Medicaid were found in the married group than in the unmarried group (all P<0.001). For the TNM stage, unmarried patients had a higher percentage of stage IV disease than married patients. More married patients received surgery than unmarried patients (64.0 vs 55.9%, P<0.001). No significant differences were found between the married and unmarried groups regarding tumor primary site, histology, or distant metastasis (M stage).
Table 1

Comparison of clinicopathological features between married and unmarried patients with small intestinal adenocarcinoma

CharacteristicsUnmarried N=2,885, n (%)Married N=3,862, n (%)P
Gender<0.001
 Male1,139 (39.5)2,517 (65.2)
 Female1,746 (60.5)1,345 (34.8)
Age (years), mean ± SD69.54±14.9366.47±12.76<0.001
Race<0.001
 White2,040 (70.7)3,095 (80.1)
 Black673 (23.3)474 (12.3)
 Othersa172 (6.0)293 (7.6)
Insurance<0.001
 Insured/Medicaid2,138 (74.1)2,891 (74.9)
 Uninsured93 (3.2)64 (1.7)
 Unknown654 (22.7)907 (23.4)
Tumor primary site0.066
 Duodenum1,671 (57.9)654 (58.7)
 Jejunum374 (13.0)574 (14.9)
 Ileum370 (12.8)475 (12.3)
 Meckel’s diverticulum5 (0.2)4 (0.1)
Overlapping lesion of small intestine38 (1.3)43 (1.1)
 Small intestine, NOS427 (14.8)498 (12.9)
AJCC seventh TNM stage0.001
 I191 (6.6)244 (6.3)
 II362 (12.5)489 (12.7)
 III305 (10.6)544 (14.1)
 IV524 (18.2)665 (17.2)
 Unknown/NA/blank(s)1,503 (52.1)1,920 (49.7)
AJCC seventh T stage0.008
 T07 (0.2)6 (0.2)
 T1221 (7.7)278 (7.2)
 T265 (2.3)119 (3.1)
 T3371 (12.9)599 (15.5)
 T4564 (19.5)750 (19.4)
 TX/unknown/NA/blank(s)1,657 (57.4)2,110 (54.6)
AJCC seventh N stage0.047
 N0845 (29.3)1,082 (28.0)
 N1362 (12.5)557 (14.4)
 N2173 (6.0)266 (6.9)
 NX/unknown/NA/blank(s)1,505 (52.2)1,957 (50.7)
AJCC seventh M stage0.328
 M01,024 (35.5)1,433 (37.1)
 M1526 (18.2)666 (17.2)
 Blank(s)1,335 (46.3)1,763 (45.6)
Grade0.012
 Well differentiated215 (7.5)292 (7.6)
 Moderately differentiated1,174 (40.7)1,629 (42.2)
 Poorly differentiated848 (29.4)1,209 (31.3)
 Undifferentiated/anaplastic34 (1.2)40 (1.0)
 Unknown614 (21.3)692 (17.9)
Histology0.676
 Other adenocarcinoma2,542 (88.1)3,407 (88.2)
 Mucinous adenocarcinoma234 (8.1)297 (7.7)
 Signet ring cell109 (3.8)158 (4.1)
Surgery<0.001
 Yes1,612 (55.9)2,472 (64.0)
 No1,257 (43.6)1,367 (35.4)
 Unknown16 (0.6)23 (0.6)

Note:

Including American Indian/AK native and Asian/Pacific Islander (N=448) and unknown race (N=17).

Abbreviations: AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; NOS, not otherwise specified; NA, not applicable.

Influence of marital status on small intestinal adenocarcinoma OS

As shown in Table 2, the 5-year OS for the whole population was 23.6%. The 5-year OS was significantly longer in married patients than in unmarried patients (27.1 vs 18.8%, P<0.001, Figure 1). Younger patients (age at diagnosis <68 years) had a significantly better 5-year OS than older patients (30.7 vs 16.1%, P<0.001). Surprisingly, the 5-year OS of patients without insurance was significantly better than that of patients with insurance/Medicaid (32.4 vs 23.0%, P<0.021). Compared with other tumor sites, tumors located in the duodenum and Meckel’s diverticulum had the lowest 5-year OS at 18.2 and 0%, respectively (P<0.001). For the histology subtypes, signet ring cells had worse 5-year OS than mucinous adenocarcinoma and other adenocarcinoma (12.0 vs 27.3 and 23.8%, respectively, P<0.001). Unevent fully, the 5-year OS of well-differentiated and moderately differentiated small intestinal adenocarcinoma was better than that of poorly differentiated and undifferentiated/anaplastic adenocarcinoma (35.1 and 29.8% vs 21.6 and 14.7%, respectively, P<0.001). A total of 4,084 of the 6,747 (60.5%) patients received surgery, and the 5-year OS was better in patients undergoing surgery than in patients without surgery (36.7 vs 2.9%, P<0.001). Finally, TNM stage was significantly correlated with OS. The 5-year OS was 38.1, 41.0, 29.8, and 4.6% for stages I, II, III, and IV, respectively (P<0.001).
Table 2

Univariate and multivariate analyses of small intestinal adenocarcinoma OS

Characteristics5-Year OS (%)Univariate analysisMultivariate analysis
Log-rank χ2 testPHR (95% CI)P
Marital status121.810<0.001<0.001
 Unmarried18.8Reference
 Married27.10.789 (0.745–0.836)
Gender0.0230.879
 Male23.6
 Female23.6
Age (years)387.401<0.001<0.001
 <6830.7Reference
 ≥6816.11.515 (1.426–1.610)
Race0.4210.810
 White24.0
 Black21.7
 Othersa23.3
Insurance7.7620.0210.703
 Insured/Medicaid23.0Reference
 Uninsured32.40.914 (0.740–1.128)
 Unknown24.00.998 (0.926–1.076)
Tumor primary site325.506<0.001<0.001
 Duodenum18.2Reference
 Jejunum38.60.829 (0.751–0.914)
 Ileum34.00.982 (0.887–1.088)
 Meckel’s diverticulum01.632 (0.730–3.646)
 Overlapping lesion of small intestine28.00.967 (0.732–1.276)
 Small intestine, NOS21.31.218 (1.114–1.331)
AJCC seventh TNM stage626.818<0.001<0.001
 I38.1Reference
 II41.01.011 (0.852–1.200
 III29.81.276 (1.080–1.508)
 IV4.61.923 (1.652–2.238)
 Unknown/NA/blank(s)22.11.460 (1.264–1.686)
Grade399.771<0.001<0.001
 Well differentiated35.1Reference
 Moderately differentiated29.81.096 (0.969–1.239)
 Poorly differentiated21.61.438 (1.268–1.631)
 Undifferentiated/anaplastic14.71.731 (1.296–2.312)
 Unknown0.91.102 (0.966–1.257)
Histology28.093<0.0010.002
 Other adenocarcinoma23.8Reference
 Mucinous adenocarcinoma27.31.042 (0.933–1.164)
 Signet ring cell12.01.287 (1.117–1.483)
Surgery2,161.604<0.001<0.001
 Yes36.7Reference
 No2.93.222 (2.983–3.480)
 Unknown23.81.731 (1.118–2.520)

Note:

Including American Indian/AK native and Asian/Pacific Islander (N=448) and unknown race (N=17).

Abbreviations: AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; NOS, not otherwise specified; OS, overall survival; NA, not applicable.

Figure 1

Overall survival in small intestinal adenocarcinoma according to marital status.

Influence of marital status on small intestinal adenocarcinoma CSS

As shown in Table 3, the 5-year CSS for the whole population was 43.0%. The 5-year CSS was significantly greater in married patients than in unmarried patients (45.7 vs 39.3%, P<0.001, Figure 2). Patients whose age at diagnosis were <68 years had significantly better 5-year CSS than older patients (46.7 vs 39.5%, P<0.001). Gender, race, and insurance had no influence on 5-year CSS. Tumors located in the duodenum and Meckel’s diverticulum had lower 5-year CSS than tumors located in the jejunum, ileum, and small intestine NOS (35.6 and 0% vs 53.5, 57.0, and 57.0%, respectively, P<0.001). For histology subtypes, signet ring cells had worse 5-year CSS than mucinous adenocarcinoma and other adenocarcinoma (24.6 vs 48.6 and 43.3%, respectively, P<0.001). Additionally, the 5-year CSS of well-differentiated and moderately differentiated small intestinal adenocarcinoma was better than that of poorly differentiated and undifferentiated/anaplastic adenocarcinoma (61.9 and 51.3% vs 38.1 and 34.4%, respectively, P<0.001). Patients undergoing surgery had better 5-year CSS than those without surgery (57.2 vs 10.9%, P<0.001). Finally, TNM stage was significantly correlated with CSS. The 5-year CSS was 68.3, 65.4, 44.5, and 11.1%, respectively, for stages I, II, III, and IV (P<0.001).
Table 3

Univariate and multivariate analyses of small intestinal adenocarcinoma CSS

Characteristics5-Year CSS (%)Univariate analysisMultivariate analysis
Log-rank χ2 testPHR (95% CI)P
Marital status55.054<0.001<0.001
 Unmarried39.3Reference
 Married45.70.794 (0.736–0.857)
Gender1.3920.238
 Male43.3
 Female42.7
Age (years)63.046<0.001<0.001
 <6846.7Reference
 ≥6839.51.161 (1.075–1.254)
Race2.8850.236
 White44.1
 Black38.6
 Othersa41.8
Insurance0.8610.650
 Insured/Medicaid42.6
 Uninsured43.6
 Unknown43.6
Tumor primary site240.334<0.0010.014
 Duodenum35.6Reference
 Jejunum53.50.840 (0.741–0.951)
 Ileum57.00.851 (0.740–0.978)
 Meckel’s diverticulum02.207 (0.913–5.333)
 Overlapping lesion of small intestine46.50.897 (0.624–1.287)
 Small intestine, NOS48.70.967 (0.853–1.096)
AJCC seventh TNM stage689.047<0.001<0.001
 I68.3Reference
 II65.41.144 (0.880–1.489)
 III44.51.887 (1.475–2.413)
 IV11.13.191 (2.540–4.008)
 Unknown/NA/blank(s)42.41.995 (1.604–2.482)
Grade360.890<0.001<0.001
 Well differentiated61.9Reference
 Moderately differentiated51.31.194 (1.002–1.423)
 Poorly differentiated38.11.749 (1.464–2.090)
 Undifferentiated/anaplastic34.42.030 (1.387–2.971)
 Unknown22.01.290 (1.072–1.552)
Histology24.234<0.0010.010
 Other adenocarcinoma43.3Reference
 Mucinous adenocarcinoma48.61.070 (0.924–1.240)
 Signet ring cell24.61.312 (1.096–1.571)
Surgery1,546.559<0.001<0.001
 Yes57.2Reference
 No10.93.472 (3.138–3.841)
 Unknown44.71.321 (0.745–2.341)

Note:

Including American Indian/AK native and Asian/Pacific Islander (N=448) and unknown race (N=17).

Abbreviations: AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; CSS, cancer-specific survival; NOS, not otherwise specified.

Figure 2

Cancer-specific survival in small intestinal adenocarcinoma according to marital status.

Multivariate analysis

Variables that had a significant association with survival in univariate analysis (P<0.05) were enrolled in the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, marital status, age, tumor primary site, TNM stage, grade, histology, and surgery were independent prognostic factors for OS and CSS. Compared with unmarried patients, married patients had an HR of 0.789 (95% CI: 0.745–0.836, P<0.001, Table 2) for OS and 0.794 (95% CI: 0.736–0.857, P<0.001, Table 3) for CSS.

Subgroup analysis

As shown in Table 4, widowed patients had worse survival (5-year CSS 36.6%) than married (5-year CSS 45.7%), never married (5-year CSS 39.9%), divorced (5-year CSS 43.1%), and separated (5-year CSS 47.7%) patients (similar results were found regarding OS, data not shown). For TNM stages I, II, III, and IV patients, married patients had better OS and CSS than unmarried patients (P<0.001, data not shown). Married patients had better CSS than unmarried patients no matter whether they received surgery or not (Figure 3, similar results were found regarding OS, data not shown).
Table 4

Marital status and small intestinal adenocarcinoma CSS

Marital statusn (%)5-Year CSS (%)Cox univariate analysis
HR (95% CI)P
Married (including common law)3,862 (57.2)45.7Reference
Unmarried
 Single (never married)1,040 (15.4)39.91.229 (1.107–1.366)<0.001
 Widowed1,197 (17.7)36.61.521 (1.376–1.682)<0.001
 Divorced583 (8.6)43.11.185 (1.035–1.356)0.014
 Separated61 (0.9)47.71.094 (0.737–1.652)0.655
 Unmarried or domestic partner4 (0.1)01.835 (0.459–7.347)0.391

Abbreviation: CSS, cancer-specific survival.

Figure 3

Subgroup analysis of cancer-specific survival in small intestinal adenocarcinoma according to marital status.

Notes: (A) Surgery, P<0.001. (B) No surgery, P<0.001.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to examine whether marital status has an effect on survival in small intestine adenocarcinoma. Marriage has a protective effect on the outcome in small intestine adenocarcinoma, which is consistent with recent reports.10–13 Married patients have better 5-year OS and CSS than unmarried patients, including single (never married), widowed, divorced, separated, and unmarried or domestic partner patients. After adjusting for age, insurance status, tumor primary site, TNM stage, tumor grade, tumor histology, and surgery, the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model showed that marital status was an independent prognostic factor for OS and CSS in small intestine adenocarcinoma. After stratification by TNM stage or surgery, we still found that married patients had better OS and CSS than unmarried patients. Previous studies demonstrated that African American/black patients have later tumor stages and worse outcomes.17,18 The present study shows that there are more Caucasian/white patients than African American/black and other ethnicity patients in the married group. However, we could not find any OS or CSS differences between white, black, and other ethnicity patients in univariate analysis. Thus, race is not a prognostic factor for small intestine adenocarcinoma and outcome differences between married and unmarried patients could not be explained by race disparities. Studies found that a greater percentage of uninsured patients were unmarried, which predicted poorer outcomes than those of patients with Medicaid or insurance in renal cell carcinoma and other cancers.10,19,20 Surprisingly, the present study found an adverse association between insurance and OS in small intestine adenocarcinoma. Patients with insurance/Medicaid had lower 5-year OS than those without insurance, although no differences were found for CSS. Unmarried patients, lacking spousal care and support, usually live with chronic psychological distress and unhealthy lifestyle habits, such as smoking and alcohol abuse, resulting in disease progression and undertreatment.21–23 Unmarried patients also tend to have latter stages of disease.13 Hershman et al24 reported that unmarried patients were more likely to delay the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy after breast cancer surgery, leading to higher mortality. Our results are in line with those of previous studies, as we found a higher percentage of stage IV disease in unmarried patients than in married patients and that unmarried patients were less likely to receive surgery than married patients (55.9 vs 66.0%, P<0.001). Encouragement and economic supports from the spouses of the married patients contributed to their compliance with surgery and adjuvant therapy, which may partly account for the discrepancies.25,26 Our study should be interpreted with caution due to the limited nature of the SEER database. First, some clinicopathological features, such as tumor grade, TNM stage, and surgery status, had missing data. Second, lifestyle, socioeconomic status, and adjuvant therapy were not included in the database. Finally, the database recorded marital status only at diagnosis and not thereafter. All these restrictions may have led to an unreliable conclusion. Despite the above limitations, our study indicates that marital status is an independent prognostic factor in small intestine adenocarcinoma. Married patients have better OS and CSS than unmarried patients. Psychological and economic supports from the spouses of married patients may contribute to the improved survival.

Conclusion

Married small intestinal adenocarcinoma patients have better OS and CSS than unmarried patients. Psychological and economic supports from the spouses of married patients may contribute to improvements in survival.
  25 in total

1.  Cancer statistics, 2018.

Authors:  Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 508.702

2.  Breast cancer stage variation and survival in association with insurance status and sociodemographic factors in US women 18 to 64 years old.

Authors:  Christine D Hsu; Xiaoyan Wang; David V Habif; Cynthia X Ma; Kimberly J Johnson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-04-25       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Incidence of small bowel cancer in the United States and worldwide: geographic, temporal, and racial differences.

Authors:  Tmirah Haselkorn; Alice S Whittemore; David E Lilienfeld
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.506

4.  Primary cancers of the small bowel: analysis of prognostic factors and results of surgical management.

Authors:  Mark S Talamonti; Laura H Goetz; Sambasiva Rao; Raymond J Joehl
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2002-05

5.  Association between insurance status at diagnosis and overall survival in chronic myeloid leukemia: A population-based study.

Authors:  Ashley M Perry; Andrew M Brunner; Tao Zou; Kristin L McGregor; Philip C Amrein; Gabriela S Hobbs; Karen K Ballen; Donna S Neuberg; Amir T Fathi
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 6.  The protective effect of marriage for survival: a review and update.

Authors:  Michael S Rendall; Margaret M Weden; Melissa M Favreault; Hilary Waldron
Journal:  Demography       Date:  2011-05

7.  Delay of adjuvant chemotherapy initiation following breast cancer surgery among elderly women.

Authors:  Dawn L Hershman; Xiaoyan Wang; Russell McBride; Judith S Jacobson; Victor R Grann; Alfred I Neugut
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2006-04-01       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Psychological distress among male patients and male spouses: what do oncologists need to know?

Authors:  G Goldzweig; E Andritsch; A Hubert; B Brenner; N Walach; S Perry; L Baider
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2009-10-11       Impact factor: 32.976

9.  The Effect of Peer Support on Colorectal Cancer Patients' Adherence to Guideline-Concordant Multidisciplinary Care.

Authors:  Arielle E Kanters; Arden M Morris; Paul H Abrahamse; Lona Mody; Pasithorn A Suwanabol
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 4.585

10.  Marital status and survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Yan Li; Ming-Xi Zhu; Si-Hua Qi
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 1.889

View more
  6 in total

1.  Does marital status impact postoperative survival in patients with less differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma? A population-based study.

Authors:  Bing Yan; Dou-Sheng Bai; Jian-Jun Qian; Chi Zhang; Sheng-Jie Jin; Guo-Qing Jiang
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2019-09-02       Impact factor: 4.452

2.  Marital status is an independent prognostic factor in inflammatory breast cancer patients: an analysis of the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database.

Authors:  Yan-Ling Liu; Dun-Wei Wang; Zhu-Chun Yang; Rui Ma; Zhong Li; Wei Suo; Zhuang Zhao; Zhi-Wen Li
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019-08-14       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  Marital status impacts survival in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a population-based, propensity-matched study.

Authors:  Keyi Wang; Weipu Mao; Heng Shi; Guangchun Wang; Lei Yin; Jinbo Xie; Lap Hong Ian; Hui Zhang; Bo Peng
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-08

4.  Development and validation of prognostic nomograms for patients with metastatic small bowel adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Hanlong Zhu; Si Zhao; Tianming Zhao; Kang Jiang; Lin Miao; Mingzuo Jiang; Fangyu Wang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-04-08       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  A convenient clinical nomogram for predicting the cancer-specific survival of individual patients with small-intestine adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Na Wang; Jin Yang; Jun Lyu; Qingqing Liu; Hairong He; Jie Liu; Li Li; Xuequn Ren; Zhendong Li
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 4.430

6.  Marital status and survival of patients with colorectal signet ring cell carcinoma: a population-based study.

Authors:  Li Feng; Yong-Jing Yang; Juan Du; Yong-Jiang Yu; Jian-Dong Diao
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-10-21       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.