scholarly journals The Impact of Socioeconomic Factors on Cancer Survival Rate

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajabali Daroudi ◽  
Nasrin Sargazi ◽  
Arya Sakhidel Hovasin ◽  
Mohammadreza Sheikhy-Chaman
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Socioeconomic Factors ◽  
Cancer Survival ◽  
Healthcare Expenditure ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Literacy Rate ◽  
The Impact

Background: Socioeconomic status, as a major determinant of health, has a considerable impact on the cancer survival rate. The present study aimed to investigate the impact of socioeconomic factors on the 5-year survival rate for the most common cancer types in 56 countries. Methods: In this ecological study, 5-year survival data for gastric cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, and leukemia during the period of 2005-2009 and socioeconomic factors including gross domestic product (GDP), life expectancy, literacy rate, urbanization and healthcare expenditure were extracted from the CONCORD-2 study and the World Bank database, respectively. multivariate regression analysis was used to estimate the model with the ordinary least-squares (OLS) method using Stata 14 software. Results: The GDP coefficient for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and leukemia was positive and significant. No correlation was identified between gastric, colon, lung, ovarian, and prostate cancer and GDP. Gastric, colon, breast, and prostate cancers had a positive and significant correlation with life expectancy. In contrast, no significant correlation was found between lung cancer, cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, leukemia and life expectancy. There was no correlation between cancer survival rate and literacy rate, or urbanization. There was only a positive correlation between prostate cancer and healthcare expenditure. Furthermore, there was no statistically significant relationship between gastric and ovarian cancers and socioeconomic variables. Finally, GDP and life expectancy had the most significant impact on cancer survival rates. Conclusion: Different countries can play a key role in increasing cancer survival rates by implementing policies to improve economic and social factors.

Cancer Survival Is (Mostly) Improving

Pained ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 245-246
Author(s):  
Michael D. Stein ◽  
Sandro Galea
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
United States ◽  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Cancer Survival ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cervical Cancers

This chapter discusses how the 5-year survival rates for the most common cancers in the United States improved by nearly 20% since the 1970s. While promising overall, low survival rates persist for pancreatic, liver, lung, esophageal, brain, and many other cancers. Meanwhile, 5-year survival for uterine and cervical cancers worsened. Pancreatic cancer has the lowest 5-year survival rate at 8.2%. In contrast, prostate cancer had the greatest 5-year survival increase from 67.8% to 98.6%, most likely reflecting a substantial uptick in prostate cancer screening and early detection. Five-year survival with leukemia also improved significantly, from 34.2% to 60.6%, likely resulting from improved treatments. As such, in both detection and treatment, the United States is making progress. For the millions of Americans who face a cancer diagnosis, this is cause for hope.

EP299 The impact of surgical approach on cervical cancer survival rates

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Gracia Segovia ◽  
A Casajuana Pérez ◽  
V González González ◽  
M Ramírez Mena ◽  
M Bellón del Amo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Surgical Approach ◽  
Cancer Survival ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
The Impact

Pharmaceutical Innovation and U.S. Cancer Survival, 1992-2003: Evidence from Linked SEER-MEDSTAT Data

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank R. Lichtenberg
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
Cancer Survival ◽  
Sampling Error ◽  
Weighted Least Squares ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Pharmaceutical Innovation ◽  
Diagnostic Radiology ◽  
Medical Innovation ◽  
The Impact

This study examines the impact of pharmaceutical innovation and other factors on the survival of U.S. cancer patients during the period 1992-2003. In particular, it investigates whether cancer survival rates increased more for those cancer sites that had the largest increases in the proportion of chemotherapy treatments that were "new" treatments. We control for other types of medical innovation, i.e. other pharmaceutical innovation, and innovation in surgical procedures, diagnostic radiology procedures, and radiation oncology procedures.Data on observed survival rates, the number of people diagnosed, mean age at diagnosis, and stage distribution are obtained from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER public-use data. Estimates of rates of innovation in chemotherapy and other treatment and diagnostic procedures are constructed from the MEDSTAT MarketScan database and other data sources. Treatment innovation indicators based on MEDSTAT data are likely to be useful, albeit noisy, indicators of the treatment innovation experienced by patients in SEER registries. This sampling error is likely to bias the coefficients on the treatment innovation measures towards zero.We compute weighted least-squares estimates of 6 versions of a survival model, based on different survival intervals and functional forms. The chemotherapy vintage coefficient is positive and significant in every model. This indicates that the cancer sites whose chemotherapy vintage (measured by the share of post-1990 treatments) increased the most during the period 1992-2003 tended to have larger increases in observed survival rates, ceteris paribus.We estimate how much lower the survival rate from all cancer sites combined would have been during 1993-2001 in the absence of post-1992 chemotherapy innovation. The estimates indicate that chemotherapy innovation accounted for 74% of the increase in the 1-year observed survival rate for all cancer sites combined during the period 1992-2001. Chemotherapy innovation accounted for smaller fractions of the increases in the 2-year and 3-year observed survival rates for all cancer sites combined during the same period: 51% and 29%, respectively.The coefficients on measures of non-pharmaceutical medical innovation (in radiation oncology, diagnostic radiology, and surgery innovation) are generally not significant. However these measures may be less reliable than the drug innovation measure. They were based upon the year in which the AMA established a new procedure code, which may be a far less meaningful indicator of innovation than the year in which the FDA first approved a drug. This topic warrants further research.

285: The Impact of Socioeconomic Factors on Prostate Cancer Outcomes in a Large Series of African-American Patients

2007 ◽  
Vol 177 (4S) ◽  
pp. 95-95
Author(s):  
Atreya Dash ◽  
Peng Lee ◽  
Qin Zhou ◽  
Aaron D. Berger ◽  
Jerome Jean-Gilles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
African American ◽  
Socioeconomic Factors ◽  
Large Series ◽  
Cancer Outcomes ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Cognitive decline in patients with prostate cancer: study protocol of a prospective cohort, NEON-PC

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e043844
Author(s):  
Natalia Araujo ◽  
Samantha Morais ◽  
Ana Rute Costa ◽  
Raquel Braga ◽  
Ana Filipa Carneiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cognitive Decline ◽  
Cognitive Performance ◽  
Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Cardiovascular Complications ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
High Survival ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionProstate cancer is the most prevalent oncological disease among men in industrialised countries. Despite the high survival rates, treatments are often associated with adverse effects, including metabolic and cardiovascular complications, sexual dysfunction and, to a lesser extent, cognitive decline. This study was primarily designed to evaluate the trajectories of cognitive performance in patients with prostate cancer, and to quantify the impact of the disease and its treatments on the occurrence of cognitive decline.MethodsParticipants will be recruited from two main hospitals providing care to approximately half of the patients with prostate cancer in Northern Portugal (Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto and São João Hospital Centre), and will comprise a cohort of recently diagnosed patients with prostate cancer proposed for different treatment plans, including: (1) radical prostatectomy; (2) brachytherapy and/or radiotherapy; (3) radiotherapy in combination with androgen deprivation therapy and (4) androgen deprivation therapy (with or without chemotherapy). Recruitment began in February 2018 and is expected to continue until the first semester of 2021. Follow-up evaluations will be conducted at 1, 3, 5, 7 and 10 years. Sociodemographic, behavioural and clinical characteristics, anxiety and depression, health literacy, health status, quality of life, and sleep quality will be assessed. Blood pressure and anthropometrics will be measured, and a fasting blood sample will be collected. Participants’ cognitive performance will be evaluated before treatments and throughout follow-up (Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Cube Test as well as Brain on Track for remote monitoring). All participants suspected of cognitive impairment will undergo neuropsychological tests and clinical observation by a neurologist.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the hospitals involved. All participants will provide written informed consent, and study procedures will be developed to ensure data protection and confidentiality. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation in scientific meetings.

scholarly journals Bone Health in Men with Prostate Cancer: Review Article

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 527-537 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salma A M El Badri ◽  
Abdulazeez Salawu ◽  
Janet E Brown
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Bone Health ◽  
Cancer Survival ◽  
Cancer Treatments ◽  
Cumulative Impact ◽  
Cancer Review ◽  
Published Evidence ◽  
Prostate Cancer Treatments ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Purpose of Review The improvement in prostate cancer survival over time, even in those with advanced disease, has led to an increasing recognition of the impact of prostate cancer and its treatment on bone health. Cancer treatment–induced bone loss (CTIBL) is a well-recognized entity but greater awareness of the risks associated with CTIBL and its treatment is required. Recent Findings The principal culprit in causing CTIBL is hormonal ablation induced by prostate cancer treatment, including several new agents which have been developed in recent years which significantly improve survival, but may cause CTIBL. This review discusses the impact of prostate cancer and its treatment on bone health, including published evidence on the underlying pathophysiology, assessment of bone health, and strategies for prevention and treatment. Summary It is important to recognize the potential cumulative impact of systemic prostate cancer treatments on bone health.

scholarly journals Survival of cervical cancer patients and its prognostic factors at Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laila Nuranna ◽  
Rahma Prastasari ◽  
Bambang Sutrisna
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Median Survival ◽  
Survival Probability ◽  
Cancer Survival ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Cox Regression Analysis ◽  
Lower Survival

Background: Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among Indonesian women. Information concerning survival probability is very important for the patient and institution. Our last data about cervical cancer survival was studied for more than 10 years ago. This study aimed to know the latest cervical cancer survival and its prognostic factors.Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study which enrolled cervical cancer patients treated at Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital in 2005-2006. Subjects were followed-up for minimum of 5 years. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis was used to determine the survival probability and to assess prognostic factors.Results: A total of 447 patients who met the study criteria were selected. Stage III was the largest proportion on the study (41.6%). Most of the histopathology type was squamous cell carcinoma (71.6%). This study revealed that median survival was 63 months with the overall 5-years survival probability to be 52%. Tumor size did not influence overall survival rate. Stage III and IV had lower survival probability (HR 3.27 and 6.44). Poor differentiation and uncompleted therapy also had lower survival probability (HR 2.26 and 2.22). Histopathology of others (neuroendocrine) had lower survival probability (HR 2.85). However, it was not statistically significant on multivariate analysis.Conclusion: Median survival time for cervical cancer patients at Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital was 63 months. There were improvement in the survival rate comparing from the study in 1997. In this study, the independent prognostic factors for survival were tumor staging, tumor differentiation, and completion of therapy.

Prostate cancer patient’s survival in Lithuania

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 439-444
Author(s):  
Giedrė Smailytė ◽  
Robertas Adomaitis ◽  
Karolis Ulinskas ◽  
Birutė Aleknavičienė
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Relative Survival ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
Place Of Residence ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
Survival Differences

Background. The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in the survival of prostate cancer patients during the 12-year period and to analyze differences in survival by period of diagnosis, stage of disease, age and place of residence. Materials and methods. All newly diagnosed cases of prostate cancer (ICD-10, C61) in men were identified in the Lithuanian Cancer Registry for the period 1994–2005. Five-year relative survival estimates were computed with the Hakulinen method using the STATA software. Five-year relative survival estimates were calculated for three different periods of time when prostate cancer was diagnosed (1994–1997, 1998–2001 and 2002–2005), by age (15–59, 60–74, and 75–99), stage at diagnosis (I, II, III, IV, unknown) and place of residence (cities and towns or rural areas). Results. The survival of prostate cancer patients in Lithuania has dramatically increased. Five-year relative survival in the period 1994–1997 was 46.92% and in the period 2002–2005 it reached 86.49%. Medium age prostate cancer patients (60–74 years) compared to younger and older patients had better survival rates. Increasing survival was observed for all stages of disease. Lower five-year relative survival rate of prostate cancer patients was reported for men from villages or other rural areas compared to patients from cities and towns in all periods under study. Conclusions. The five-year survival rate of patients with prostate cancer has increased from 46.92% (95% CI 44.12–49.74) in 1994–1997 to 86.49% (95% CI 84.73–88.22) in 2002–2005 in Lithuania. The study identified survival differences by age and place of residence. Issues, such as access to care, quality of medical care, must be made equally available and accessible for the whole population with special attention to older men and men living in rural areas.

A decision analytic model of prostate cancer screening using prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal exam

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5155-5155
Author(s):  
J. H. Hayes ◽  
M. J. Barry ◽  
P. W. Kantoff ◽  
J. E. Stahl
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Decision Analytic Model ◽  
Digital Rectal Exam ◽  
Psa Screening ◽  
The Impact

5155 Background: PSA-based screening has been widely adopted in the US although a mortality benefit has yet to be demonstrated. The disutility of screening and quality of life of men diagnosed and treated after screening are critical issues in assessing its benefit and harm. The purpose of this model is to estimate the effect of one-time screening for prostate cancer using Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) and DRE (digital rectal exam) on life expectancy (LE) and Quality Adjusted Life Expectancy (QALE) in the context of current diagnostic and treatment practice. Methods: A semi-Markov state transition simulation describes the relevant health states. Two strategies were compared: 1) Screening - single screening PSA and DRE; 2) No Screening - patients diagnosed after developing symptoms. Markov cycle length was 1 year. Transition probabilities and utility weights were developed from review of the literature and expert opinion. Sensitivity analyses were performed on all parameters. A PSA threshold of 4 ng/mL and age 65 were used for the base case. The model was created using TreeAge software. Results: For our base case, a single screening conferred a LE benefit of 0.37 y (15.86 vs 15.49 y) and a QALE benefit of 0.20 QALYs (15.62 vs 15.42 QALYs). Predicted 10 y cancer specific survival for screen-diagnosed men was 95.7% vs SEER 97.7%. The model predicted 9.5% of screened patients would have metastatic disease at diagnosis vs 5% in SEER (4% unknown stage); in unscreened men, this rate was 18/100,000 vs 15/100,000 in SEER. Sensitivity Analyses of Utilities (SA): The single screen model was relatively insensitive to SA of utilities: a 20% single cycle toll on one-time PSA screening disutility was required to eliminate the benefit of screening. The disutility of positive PSA with negative biopsy slightly affected QALE: a toll of 0.25 QALYs decreased QALE from 15.62 to 15.61 QALYs. Conclusions: Our model reveals a modest benefit to one-time screening for prostate cancer. This one-time screening model is relatively insensitive to utility SA; however, the importance of incorporating psychological effects of PSA screening in recurrent screening is to be determined. The impact of serial screening, lead time, PSA threshold, and cost effectiveness on LE and QALE is being analyzed. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Using adjuvant radiotherapy to improve cancer-specific survival in patients with highly aggressive prostate cancer: Examining recently released criteria.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 30-30
Author(s):  
Firas Abdollah ◽  
Giorgio Gandaglia ◽  
Alberto Briganti ◽  
Quoc-Dien Trinh ◽  
Paul Linh Nguyen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Adjuvant Radiotherapy ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Number Needed To Treat ◽  
Cancer Specific Survival ◽  
Pathological Characteristics ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
The Impact

30 Background: Although adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT) after radical prostatectomy (RP) improves biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival rates, its effect on cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) is still controversial. The aim of our study was to test the effect of aRT on CSM according to a risk score based on the number and nature of adverse pathological characteristics (Gleason score 8-10; pT3b/4, lymph node invasion [LNI]). Methods: Overall, 7,616 patients with pT3/4 N0/1 PCa treated with RP between 1995 and 2009 within the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Medicare-linked database were included in the study. Patients were stratified according to the risk score (less than 2 vs. 2 or more adverse characteristics), and the impact of aRT on CSM was examined in each sub-group. Additionally, to evaluate the effectiveness of aRT, we calculated the number needed to treat (NNT), defined as the average number of patients who must be treated to prevent one detrimental outcome. Subsequently, competing-risks regression models were used to test the effect of aRT on CSM rates in the overall population and after stratifying patients according to their risk score (less than 2 vs. 2 or more). Results: The risk score was associated with increasing 10-year CSM rates (P<0.001). When focusing on patients with a risk score 2 or more, 10-year CSM rates were significantly lower for individuals undergoing aRT compared to their counterpart not receiving aRT (6.9 vs. 16.2%, respectively; P=0.002). The corresponding NNT to prevent one death from PCa was 10. Adjuvant RT was not associated with lower CSM rates overall and in patients with a risk score less than 2. This was confirmed in multivariable analyses, where aRT decreased the risk of CSM only in patients with a risk score 2 or more (P≤0.02). Conclusions: Our findings confirm the validity of the previously reported risk score in selecting the most optimal candidates for aRT after surgery in a large contemporary population-based cohort of patients with pT3/4 N0/1 PCa. Patients with two or more adverse pathological characteristics at RP might benefit the most from aRT in terms of reduced CSM.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document