Long-term Survival and Competing Causes of Death in Men with Stage I Seminoma

Author(s):  
C.J. Beard ◽  
M. Chen ◽  
N.D. Arvold ◽  
P.L. Nguyen ◽  
A.K. Ng ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
A.K Ng ◽  
M.P Bernardo ◽  
E Weller ◽  
B Silver ◽  
K Backstrand ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Jennifer K. Peterson ◽  
Lazaros K. Kochilas ◽  
Jessica Knight ◽  
Courtney McCracken ◽  
Amanda S. Thomas ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 226-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Beard ◽  
M. Chen ◽  
N. D. Arvold ◽  
P. L. Nguyen ◽  
A. K. Ng ◽  
...  

226 Background: To better understand the impact of RT on mortality, we analyzed long-term survival and patterns of excess mortality in men with stage I seminoma. Methods: 9,045 men with stage I seminoma were identified in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database. Time to testicular-cancer mortality (TCM), death from second malignancy (SM), cardiovascular mortality (CVM) or suicide (SUIC) and all-cause mortality (ACM) were calculated. Survival estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Gender- and age-adjusted standardized mortality ratios (SMR) were calculated using U.S. population data. Cox and Fine and Gray multivariable analysis were used to evaluate the effect of RT on mortality outcomes. Results: 7,025 men (78%) received RT. After a median follow-up of 11.7 years, 869 men (9.6%) had died: sixty-five from TCM, 279 from SM, 169 from CVM and 37 from SUIC. 10-year rates of ACM and TCM were 4.24% and 0.52% among men who received RT and 7.14% and 1.22% among men who did not. Compared to the adjusted general population, men with seminoma had increased risk of ACM (SMR 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.28), SM (SMR 1.78; 95% CI 1.58-2.00) and SUIC (SMR 1.40; 95% CI 1.02-1.94) and decreased risk of CVM (SMR 0.73; 95% CI 0.62-0.84). Rates of ACM, SM and SUIC (SMR, all p < 0.05) were increased whether RT was used or not. Men who received RT were less likely to die (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.65-0.89; p < 0.001) and had a lower risk of TCM (AHR 0.39; 95% CI 0.24-0.65; p < 0.001). There was no difference in CVM between men who did and did not receive RT (AHR 0.89; 95% CI 0.60-1.15; p = 0.230) and a numerical increase in SM in men who received RT as compared to others (AHR 1.25; 95% CI 0.90-1.72; p=0.180). Conclusions: Compared to the general population, men with a history of stage I seminoma had increased risks of all-cause mortality, death from second malignancies, and suicide. Our data suggest that 15 years after diagnosis, men who did receive RT may be more likely to die from a second malignancy than men who did not. Although not receiving RT was associated with higher testicular-cancer mortality, the results may reflect decreased access to care or follow-up as active surveillance protocols were not common during the study era. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 2894-2901 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katelin A. Mirkin ◽  
Audrey S. Kulaylat ◽  
Christopher S. Hollenbeak ◽  
Evangelos Messaris

CHEST Journal ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 126 (3) ◽  
pp. 725-732 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giancarlo Roviaro ◽  
Federico Varoli ◽  
Contardo Vergani ◽  
Ombretta Nucca ◽  
Marco Maciocco ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 604-609 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katsunobu Sakurai ◽  
Naoshi Kubo ◽  
Yutaka Tamamori ◽  
Tatsuro Tamura ◽  
Takahiro Toyokawa ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (5) ◽  
pp. 549-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica J. Hopkins ◽  
Rebecca L. Reif ◽  
David L. Bigam ◽  
Vickie E. Baracos ◽  
Dean T. Eurich ◽  
...  

CHEST Journal ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 128 (4) ◽  
pp. 139S
Author(s):  
Sherilyn K. Tay ◽  
Antonio E. Martin-Ucar ◽  
Ed Black ◽  
Lynda Beggs ◽  
David Beggs ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8544-8544
Author(s):  
Michael J. Kelley ◽  
David Harpole ◽  
Christina D. Williams

8544 Background: The goal of this study was to determine patient factors associated with short- vs long-term survival after surgery for stage I/II NSCLC and assess the distribution of causes of death over time. Methods: Using the VA Central Cancer Registry, we identified patients diagnosed 2001-2005 with stage I/II NSCLC who had surgery and survived 30 days after resection. We used multivariate logistic regression models to determine the impact of patient characteristics on 1 year (1Y), 5 year (5Y), and 10 year (10Y) mortality. We compared causes of death at 1Y versus 5Y after diagnosis. Results: The analysis included 4,693 patients. Among these patients, the 1Y, 5Y, and 10Y overall survival (OS) rates were 87%, 45%, and 22%, respectively. 50% of patients alive at 5 year survived to 10 years. For each survival time period, highest survival rates were among patients who were younger (≤65), had stage I disease, had lobectomy, and had fewer comorbidities (all p < 0.0001). Significant differences in 1Y and 10Y OS were noted for histology, with highest 1Y OS among adenocarcinoma (88%) and squamous cell (87%) and highest 10Y OS among large cell (28%) and adenocarcinoma (25%). Racial differences were only observed in 10Y OS (whites 22%, blacks 26%, p = 0.01). In multivariate analyses, age > 65, stage II disease, surgery other than lobectomy, and ≥3 comorbidities were associated with increased likelihood of 1Y, 5Y, and 10Y mortality. Large cell and other histology were the only additional significant predictors of 1Y mortality [OR: 1.94 (1.33-2.84) and OR:1.36 (1.05-1.77), respectively], and squamous cell histology was a significant predictor of 10Y mortality [OR: 1.19 (1.02-1.40)] relative to adenocarcinoma. Among patients who died within 1 year of diagnosis (n = 616), the primary causes of death were lung cancer (63%), cardiovascular disease (10%), other cancer (8%), respiratory disease (3%), and other causes (15). The contribution of these causes of 5Y mortality (n = 2602) were 60%, 11%, 10%, 4%, and 12%, respectively. Conclusions: Half of patients alive at 5Y after resection of stage I/II NSCLC were alive at 10Y. 10Y survival is associated with younger age, earlier stage, non-squamous histology, lobectomy, and fewer comorbidities, but not race.


2015 ◽  
Vol 100 (1) ◽  
pp. 271-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark F. Berry ◽  
Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang ◽  
Matthew G. Hartwig ◽  
Betty C. Tong ◽  
David H. Harpole ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document