4.6 Article

Time to surgery and its impact on survival in patients with endometrial cancer: A National cancer database study

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 153, 期 3, 页码 511-516

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.03.244

关键词

Time to treatment; Endometrial cancer; Stage; Time to surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To determine patient and facility-specific factors associated with time to surgery (TTS) in patients with endometrial cancer (EC), and define the impact of delay in TTS >6 weeks on overall survival (OS) by tumor histology and stage. Methods. The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried to identify patients with EC who underwent definitive primary surgical treatment between 2004 and 2013. Patients were stratified by EC histology into type I (endometrioid) and type II (non-endometrioid). ITS (number of days from diagnosis to definitive surgery) was calculated and trends in TTS during the study period were analyzed. Poisson regression was used to identify factors associated with TTS for patients with type I and type II EC, respectively. Cox regression was used to assess the impact of delay in TTS > 6 weeks on OS by tumor histology and stage. Results. Out of 284,499 patients included in the study, 83% had type I EC and 17% had type II EC. Median (interquartile range; IQR) TTS for type I and II EC was 27 days (10-41) and 26 days (13-40), respectively. TTS increased over the study period in both groups. In Type I EC, delay in TTS was associated with worse OS in patients with early stage (I-II) EC only. In type II EC, delay in ITS had no significant impact on OS in stage I-Ill EC, while a paradoxical relationship between TTS > 6 weeks and improved OS was observed for stage IV EC. Conclusion. TTS increased over the study period. TTS >6 weeks was negatively associated with OS in early stage type I EC. Interventions to reduce TTS in specific stages and settings for EC are necessary given this impact on mortality. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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