4.6 Article

Survival outcomes of breast cancer patients with recurrence after surgery according to period and subtype

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 18, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284460

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to analyze and compare the survival rates of recurrent breast cancer patients in Korea between two periods and identify factors associated with outcomes and changes in survival after recurrence. The study found that the survival outcomes of Korean patients with breast cancer after the first recurrence have improved, possibly due to advances in treatment.
Purpose To analyze and compare the survival rates of recurrent breast cancer patients in Korea between two periods (period I: 2000-2007; period II: 2008-2013) and to identify the factors associated with outcomes and changes over time in the duration of survival after recurrence. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 2,407 patients who had recurrent breast cancer with treated between January 2000 and December 2013 and divided them into two periods according to the year of recurrence. We reviewed the age at diagnosis, clinical manifestations, pathology report, surgical methods, types of adjuvant treatment, type of recurrence, and follow-up period. Results The median follow-up was 30.6 months (range, 0-223.4) from the time of relapse, and the median survival time was 42.3 months. Survival after recurrence (SAR) significantly improved from 38.0 months in period I to 49.7 months in period II (p < 0.001). In the analysis performed according to the hormone receptor and HER2 status subtypes, all subtypes except the triple-negative subtype showed higher SAR in period II than period I. Age at diagnosis, tumor stage, and treatment after recurrence were significantly correlated with survival outcomes. Conclusion The survival outcomes of Korean patients with breast cancer after the first recurrence have improved in Korea. Such improvements may be attributed to advances 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

4.6
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