4.4 Article

Trends in Small-Cell Lung Cancer Survival in 1993-2006 Based on Population-Based Cancer Registry Data in Japan

期刊

JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 29, 期 9, 页码 347-353

出版社

JAPAN EPIDEMIOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2188/jea.JE20180112

关键词

cancer registry; population-based; small cell lung cancer; survival

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan [H25-008]
  2. JSPS KAKENHI [17K15841]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17K15841] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Lung cancers are classified into small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and non-small-cell lung cancer due to their different treatment and prognosis. Although many studies have reported the specific survival of SCLC patients treated at cancer hospitals, survival from population-based data has rarely been reported. Methods: We analyzed survival of SCLC cases diagnosed from 1993 through 2006 from a population-based cancer registry of six prefectures. To assess trends in SCLC survival, we defined three periods that mirrored developments in SCLC treatment: period 1, 1993-1998; period 2, 1999-2001; and period 3, 2002-2006. Assessments were based on relative survival (RS), excess hazard, and conditional survival. Results: A total of 10,911 SCLC patients were analyzed. Five-year RS among limited disease SCLC (LD-SCLC) in periods 1 to 3 was 16.8%, 21.1%, and 21.4%, respectively. Five-year RS among extensive disease SCLC (ED-SCLC) in periods 1 to 3 was 2.3%, 2.8%, and 2.7%, respectively. Improvement in 5-year RS in periods 2 and 3 compared with period 1 was significant among both LD- and ED-SCLC patients (all P < 0.001). Conditional 5-year RS of LD-SCLC increased from 21% at year 0 to 73% at year 5, while that of ED-SCLC was 3% at year 0 and 53% at year 5. Conclusions: The prognosis of SCLC patients improved from 1999-2001 but plateaued in 2002-2006, after which no further significant improvement was seen. Continuous survey based on population-based data is helpful in monitoring the impact of developments in treatment.

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

4.4
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