4.6 Article

Bladder cancer survivals in New South Wales, Australia: why do women have poorer survival than men?

期刊

BJU INTERNATIONAL
卷 104, 期 4, 页码 498-504

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08527.x

关键词

bladder cancer; survival; cancer registry; coding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To investigate factors that most influenced survival from bladder cancer in New South Wales, Australia (NSW) and to consider the impact of changes in coding practices on the reporting the of bladder cancer outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS All NSW cases of bladder cancer diagnosed between 1980 and 2003 were followed to the end of 2004 (17 923 cases). Survival analysis was undertaken using Kaplan-Meier unadjusted disease-specific survival and adjusted disease-specific survival using Cox proportional hazards regression modelling. This analysis was unique in that it modelled the effect of sex, age, country of birth, socio-economic status (SES), histological type, extent of disease and period of diagnosis on survival from bladder cancer in NSW. RESULTS After adjusting for sex, age, extent of disease, SES, period of diagnosis and histological type, the likelihood of death was 11% (95% confidence interval, CI 5-18%) higher in females than in males, with case fatality most influenced by age at diagnosis, extent of disease, and histological type. When the analysis was repeated for cases with a method 6 (i.e. coding undertaken in the registry after examination of the pathology report, which would enhance accuracy), the likelihood of death was 13% (95% CI 5-21%) higher in females than in males. CONCLUSIONS The NSW analysis controls for variability in coding, extent of disease at diagnosis and histological type of cancer. The analysis shows significantly lower survival from bladder cancer in NSW women compared with men, with no improvement in survival from 1980 to 2003. Possible reasons for the lower survivals in women, the lack of improvement in survival and coding differences in jurisdictions are discussed.

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