4.6 Article

National Trends in the Epidemiology of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: A National Cancer Data Base Study

期刊

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
卷 105, 期 2, 页码 432-437

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.09.036

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) remains an aggressive malignancy that is difficult to cure. However, the treatment paradigm of MPM has evolved, and the national practice patterns are unknown. This study examined the national trends in the epidemiology, national treatment patterns, and survival of patients with this disease. Methods. We identified all patients (n = 19,134) with MPM from the National Cancer Data Base from 2004 to 2013. We analyzed patient, tumor characteristics, and treatment patterns using descriptive statistics and used Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models to estimate survival stratified by the type of therapy administered. Results. Four histologic subtypes were represented in the National Cancer Data Base, these included sarcomatoid (n = 2,355 [12.3%]), epithelioid (n = 6,858 [35.8%]),biphasic (n = 13,617 [11%]), and not otherwise specified (n = the worst survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.2; p < 0.001). Most patients did not receive any specific modality of treatment (40.2%). Chemotherapy alone was the most common treatment used (31.8%). Trimodality treatment with chemotherapy, surgical resection, and radiation therapy was associated with the best survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.43; p < 0.001), followed by combination chemotherapy and resection (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.49; p < 0.001). Conclusions. This is the first publication to date to analyze the mesothelioma National Cancer Data Base. Although survival remains poor, multimodality therapy with surgical resection is associated with the best survival for MPM. Further research is needed to improve survival and overall patient outcomes. (C) 2018 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

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