4.5 Article

Estimates of Conditional Survival in Gastric Cancer Reveal a Reduction of Racial Disparities with Long-Term Follow-Up

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
卷 19, 期 2, 页码 251-257

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-014-2688-9

关键词

Gastric cancer; Conditional survival; Racial disparities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In prior analyses, conditional survival (CS) estimates for gastric cancer have weighed clinical and pathologic factors to predict prognosis at time intervals after surgery. Since racial disparities in gastric cancer outcomes were not considered, our objective was to determine whether race influences CS estimates. Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry were used to identify gastric adenocarcinoma patients who underwent curative surgical intervention between 1988 and 2005. Five-year relative conditional survival (RCS) was computed for patients who survived at least 1 to 5 years after surgery. RCS was calculated by assessing observed and expected survival in an age- and race-matched standard population. Results were compared across time and racial groups (white, black, and Asian) using z test statistics. Of 14,067 patients, 63.8 % were white, 15.5 % black, and 20.7 % Asian. Racial disparities among groups were observed with improved survival of Asians at time point zero and improved RCS at 1 year. At 5 years following curative surgery, each racial group had increased RCS and the greatest magnitude of relative increase was observed in white and black patients (121 and 118 %, respectively). Comparison of RCS at the 5-year time point revealed a reduction of racial disparities in survival among the three groups. Our investigation shows that racial disparities in gastric cancer outcomes are pronounced at the time of curative surgery but diminish after years of survival, thus suggesting race has less influence over outcomes the longer patients survive. The reasons for reduction of racial disparities remain unclear and warrant future study.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据