4.7 Article

Competing mortality in patients diagnosed with bladder cancer: evidence of undertreatment in the elderly and female patients

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 108, 期 7, 页码 1534-1540

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.106

关键词

urothelial; bladder; mortality; competing risk; elderly; female

类别

资金

  1. GSK Clinician Scientist fellowship
  2. Yorkshire Cancer Research, Sheffield Hospitals Charitable trust
  3. European Union (European Community) [FP7/2007-2013, HEALTH-F2-2007-201438]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Bladder cancer (BC) predominantly affects the elderly and is often the cause of death among patients with muscle-invasive disease. Clinicians lack quantitative estimates of competing mortality risks when considering treatments for BC. Our aim was to determine the bladder cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rate and other-cause mortality (OCM) rate for patients with newly diagnosed BC. Methods: Patients (n = 3281) identified from a population-based cancer registry diagnosed between 1994 and 2009. Median follow-up was 48.15 months (IQ range 18.1-98.7). Competing risk analysis was performed within patient groups and outcomes compared using Gray's test. Results: At 5 years after diagnosis, 1246 (40%) patients were dead: 617 (19%) from BC and 629 (19%) from other causes. The 5-year BC mortality rate varied between 1 and 59%, and OCM rate between 6 and 90%, depending primarily on the tumour type and patient age. Cancer-specific mortality was highest in the oldest patient groups. Few elderly patients received radical treatment for invasive cancer (52% vs 12% for patients <60 vs >80 years, respectively). Female patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive BC had worse CSM than equivalent males (Gray's P<0.01). Conclusion: Bladder CSM is highest among the elderly. Female patients with high-risk tumours are more likely to die of their disease compared with male patients. Clinicians should consider offering more aggressive treatment interventions among older 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

4.7
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