4.5 Article

Age-specific trends of survival in metastatic breast cancer: 26 years longitudinal data from a population-based cancer registry in Stockholm, Sweden

期刊

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
卷 130, 期 2, 页码 553-560

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1594-z

关键词

Metastatic breast cancer; Population-based; Register; Survival

类别

资金

  1. Swedish Cancer Foundation
  2. Cancer Society in Stockholm
  3. Swedish Research Council
  4. Stockholm County Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has evolved during the last decades but it is largely unknown whether this has led to improved survival in the general MBC population. Based on the regional, population-based breast cancer registry, we identified 5,463 patients diagnosed with MBC in Stockholm County during 1979-2004. Patients were divided into five cohorts based on the year of first MBC diagnosis and observed and relative survival were compared across the cohorts after adjustment for potential confounders. A significant trend of better survival over time was demonstrated for patients 60 years or younger (P < 0.001, by log-rank test for trend), but not for older patients (P = 0.12) or for the whole MBC population (P = 0.13). The adjusted observed survival of patients a parts per thousand currency sign60 years was significantly improved in the 2000-2004 cohort (P < 0.001, hazard ratio = 0.7, 95% confidence interval = 0.58-0.84), corresponding to a clinically significant increase of median survival with more than 3 months and absolute increase of 5-year survival with 8% or more compared to previous periods. Similarly, relative survival analysis indicated a 31% decreased mortality for the younger subpopulation in the 2000-2004 cohort (P < 0.001). Systemic adjuvant treatment was a negative prognostic factor after distant recurrence. Treatment advancements in MBC are not reflected by better survival for the whole MBC population. An improvement is only observed after the year 2000 and is restricted to younger patients.

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