4.5 Article

Differences in survival by histologic type of pancreatic cancer

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 14, 期 7, 页码 1766-1773

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0120

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Although pancreatic cancer has an extremely high case fatality rate, little is known about differences in mortality by histologic types. We examined median survival and risk of mortality for endocrine pancreatic tumors and two types of exocrine tumors, adenocarcinomas, and mucinous tumors. Method: This analysis included 35,276 pancreatic cancer cases reported to the nine population-based cancer registries participating in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program from 1973 to 2000. Survival among cases with pancreatic adenocarcinomas, mucinous tumors, and endocrine tumors were compared using Kaplan-Meier plots. Comparative risks of mortality were evaluated using multivariate adjusted Cox regression models. Results: Endocrine pancreatic cancer cases had a median survival of 27 months compared with a median survival of 4 Introduction months for adenocarcinoma and mucinous tumor cases. Compared with adenocarcinoma cases, endocrine tumor cases had a 0.28-fold lower risk of mortality [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.26-0.30], and mucinous tumor cases had a 0.88-fold lower risk (95% CI, 0.84-0.91). These results were similar for men and women. Within histologic types, advanced tumor stage, older diagnosis age, surgery, and Black race were associated with increased risks of mortality, whereas female sex and more recent year of diagnosis were associated with decreased risks. Conclusion: This study confirms the clinical observation that patients with endocrine pancreatic cancer survive longer than patients with exocrine tumors. A better understanding of these differences could contribute to identifying the underlying causes of pancreatic cancer and to improving survival rates across all histologic types.

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

4.5
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