4.6 Article

Higher clinical suspicion is needed for prompt diagnosis of esophageal adenocarcinoma in young patients

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.03.095

关键词

esophageal cancer; young patients; esophageal adenocarcinoma; screening guidelines

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Support Grant [P30 CA008748]
  2. American Cancer Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Esophageal cancer is considered a disease of the elderly. Although the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in young patients is increasing, current guidelines for endoscopic evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux disease and Barrett's esophagus include age as a cutoff. There is a paucity of data on the presentation and treatment of esophageal cancer in young patients. Most studies are limited by small sample sizes, and conflicting findings are reported regarding delayed diagnosis and survival compared with older patients. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the National Cancer Database between 2004 and 2015. Patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma were divided into quartiles by age (18-57, 58-65, 66-74, 75+ years) for comparison. Clinicopathologic and treatment factors were compared between groups. Results: A total of 101,596 patients were identified with esophageal cancer. The youngest patient group (18-57 years) had the highest rate of metastatic disease (34%). No difference in tumor differentiation was observed between age groups. Younger patient groups were more likely to undergo treatment despite advanced stage at diagnosis. Overall 5-year survival was better for younger patients with local disease, but the difference was less pronounced in locoregional and metastatic cases. Conclusions: In this study, young patients were more likely to have metastatic disease at diagnosis. Advanced stage in young patients may reflect the need for more aggressive clinical evaluation in high-risk young patients.

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