4.6 Article

An exploratory subgroup analysis of race and gender in squamous cancer of the head and neck: Inferior outcomes for African American males in the LORHAN database

期刊

ORAL ONCOLOGY
卷 50, 期 6, 页码 605-610

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2014.02.016

关键词

Race; Gender; Head; Neck; Carcinoma; Oral cancer; Head and neck cancer

资金

  1. Eli Lilly and Company

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Previous retrospective analyses show poor outcomes for African American (AA) patients with head and neck carcinoma (HNC). Such racial disparities are not well understood, and generally studies have been too small to investigate subgroups and interactions related to race. Materials and methods: The longitudinal oncology registry of head and neck carcinoma registry was used to identify patients >= 18 years of age with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, with no baseline metastases, and with an adequate record of survival time. Patient demographic and treatment characteristics were evaluated as a function of race and other known potential confounders of outcome. Associations between patient characteristics, including smoking, stage, performance status, and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes were also examined. Results: Analysis of OS and PFS confirmed prior reports of inferior outcomes in AA patients vs. Whites with median OS/3-yr rate 41.7 mo/52% in AAs vs. 56.6 mo/70% in Whites (hazard ratio: 1.69 [95% confidence interval: 1.42, 2.01]). The elevated risk for worse OS and PFS in AAs remained, after multivariate adjustment. African American males incurred most of the excess risk compared to AA females. Conclusion: This exploratory study confirmed a worse OS and PFS prognosis for AA patients, and it documents that most of the excess risk occurs in AA males. Future studies should confirm these findings and should investigate biological and other factors that account for such profound differences in outcomes. (c) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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