4.7 Article

Trends in incidence and prognosis for head and neck cancer in the United States: A site-specific analysis of the SEER database

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 114, 期 5, 页码 806-816

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.20740

关键词

SEER public-data; head and neck cancer; incidence; clinical stage; treatment; survival; trends

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of head and neck cancer, there has been little evidence of improvement in 5-year survival rates over the last few decades. To determine more accurate trends in site-specific outcomes as opposed to a more general overview of head and neck cancer patients, we analyzed the site-specific data collected in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-SEER Public-Use Database 1973-1999. Based on the selection criteria, 96,232 cases were evaluated for trend analysis in incidence, clinical stage, treatment and 5-year survival. During the period 1973-1999, site-specific incidence rates for head and neck cancer changed significantly. Site-specific analysis of survival from 1974-1997 showed significant improvements in 5-year survival rates for cancers of the nasopharynx, oropharynx and hypopharynx (38.1% to 56.7% for nasopharynx, p < 0.001; 36.3% to 49.1% for oropharynx, p = 0.001 and 28.3% to 33.3% for hypopharynx, p = 0.015). The prognosis for early-stage salivary gland cancer during 1983-1997 and late-stage larynx cancer during 1974-1997 also demonstrated improvement (82.7% to 88.5%,p = 0.012 and 22.2% to 38.3%,p = 0.013, respectively). On the other hand, the prognosis for regional stage oral cavity cancer as well as early-stage larynx cancer patients declined during 19831997 (49.2% to 43.8%, p = 0.032 and 82.3% to 74.3%, p = 0.002, respectively). Site-specific changes in treatment and staging were also noted. Site-specific analysis allows for a more accurate description of incidence, staging, treatment, and prognostic trends for head and neck cancer. (C) 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.7
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