Literature DB >> 8496983

Noncancer deaths in white adult cancer patients.

B W Brown1, C Brauner, M C Minnotte.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The cancer-specific death rate is a commonly used indicator in the assessment of progress against cancer. However, since the cause of death is often not substantiated and complete medical information is lacking, the validity of cancer-specific mortality rates is being questioned.
PURPOSE: We investigated the validity of the cancer-specific death rate by examining noncancer deaths of cancer patients in a large patient population.
METHODS: Data were obtained from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program on cancer patients diagnosed between 1973 and 1987, with follow-up complete through December 1987. The SEER database consists of 1.2 million records from nine population-based registries covering nine geographic regions of the United States. Rates of noncancer deaths in the U.S. population were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics. Cancer mortality rates were subtracted from overall mortality rates to obtain noncancer death rates by sex and the 5-year age group for each calendar year. Excluded from the study were patients of races other than White and those diagnosed at age 85 years or more due to absence of noncancer death rate comparisons. Also excluded were cancer cases discovered at autopsy and in persons less than 20 years of age. The statistical analysis employed a log-linear model.
RESULTS: The ratio of patient-to-general-population noncancer death rates, as calculated by dividing the number of patient noncancer deaths per year by the number found in the matched U.S. population data and referred to as the noncancer relative hazard, is considered significant with values greater than 1 for those with all cancers combined and for the common solid tumors examined. Of the 12 leading causes of death other than cancer in the patient population, the most common causes were circulatory and respiratory failures. The noncancer relative risk of death decreased rapidly after diagnosis and also decreased with the patient's age at diagnosis. It increased slightly with the calendar year of diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Because more noncancer deaths occurred shortly after diagnosis, it appears that this excess was caused by treatment of the cancer. Generally, cancer-specific death rates underestimate the mortality associated with a diagnosis of cancer. Therefore, because the degree of underestimation changes with time, an examination solely of cancer-caused mortality in assessing progress against the disease is incomplete.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8496983     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/85.12.979

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  71 in total

1.  Androgen deprivation and thromboembolic events in men with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Behfar Ehdaie; Coral L Atoria; Amit Gupta; Andrew Feifer; William T Lowrance; Michael J Morris; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Elena B Elkin
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 2.  Nutrition and survival after the diagnosis of breast cancer: a review of the evidence.

Authors:  Cheryl L Rock; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-08-01       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Income and long-term breast cancer survival: comparisons of vulnerable urban places in Ontario and California.

Authors:  Kevin M Gorey; Karen Y Fung; Isaac N Luginaah; Eric J Holowaty; Caroline Hamm
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2010-04-21       Impact factor: 2.431

4.  Cancer survivors' uptake and adherence in diet and exercise intervention trials: an integrative data analysis.

Authors:  Rebecca N Adams; Catherine E Mosher; Cindy K Blair; Denise C Snyder; Richard Sloane; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-08-25       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Increased racial differences on breast cancer care and survival in America: historical evidence consistent with a health insurance hypothesis, 1975-2001.

Authors:  Kevin M Gorey; Isaac N Luginaah; Kendra L Schwartz; Karen Y Fung; Madhan Balagurusamy; Emma Bartfay; Frances C Wright; Uzoamaka Anucha; Renee R Parsons
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2008-03-11       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Effects of socioeconomic status on colon cancer treatment accessibility and survival in Toronto, Ontario, and San Francisco, California, 1996-2006.

Authors:  Kevin M Gorey; Isaac N Luginaah; Emma Bartfay; Karen Y Fung; Eric J Holowaty; Frances C Wright; Caroline Hamm; Sindu M Kanjeekal
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2010-03-18       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Assessing the effectiveness of health interventions for cost-effectiveness analysis. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Authors:  J S Mandelblatt; D G Fryback; M C Weinstein; L B Russell; M R Gold
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Breast cancer survival in ontario and california, 1998-2006: socioeconomic inequity remains much greater in the United States.

Authors:  Kevin M Gorey; Isaac N Luginaah; Eric J Holowaty; Karen Y Fung; Caroline Hamm
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.797

9.  Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Jerome M Reich
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-09-15       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 10.  Prostate cancer survivorship: prevention and treatment of the adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy.

Authors:  Philip J Saylor; Nancy L Keating; Matthew R Smith
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.