4.6 Article

Sex and survival in non-small cell lung cancer: A nationwide cohort study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 14, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219206

关键词

-

资金

  1. FORTE -The Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare [2012-03047]
  2. Swedish research council [2017-01954]
  3. Stockholm County Council
  4. Swedish Research Council [2012-03047] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To in detail delineate sex differences in non-small cell lung cancer outcome and investigate possible underlying drivers. Methods We performed a nationwide, population-based cohort study using data on all incident cases of lung squamous cell carcinoma (n = 10,325) and adenocarcinoma (n = 23,465) recorded in the Swedish Lung Cancer Register in 2002-2016. Flexible parametric models were applied to compute adjusted female-to-male hazard ratios (aHRs) and standardized survival proportions over follow-up including age, calendar year, education, marital status, birth country, health care region, performance status, smoking history, comorbidities, and tumor location in the final model. Results Women presented with better performance status, were younger, and more often never-smokers. Women with adenocarcinoma also had lower comorbidity burden, less advanced stage, and were more often EGFR positive. Men with adenocarcinoma had a consistently poorer lung cancer-specific survival across stage; HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.63-0.76 (stage IA-IIB) to 0.94; 95% CI 0.88-0.99 (stage IIIB-IV), remaining largely unchanged after adjustments; aHR 0.74; 95% CI 0.66-0.82 to 0.84; 95% CI 0.81-0.87. The same pattern was observed in squamous cell carcinoma, except in stage IIIA disease, where we found no sex differences in survival. Conclusions Men with non-small cell lung cancer have a consistently poorer prognosis, even after careful adjustments for a wide range of prognostic factors. While the pattern was similar in both squamous cell and adenocarcinoma, it was larger and more consistent in the latter.

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