4.7 Article

Breast cancer survival and stage at diagnosis in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK, 2000-2007: a population-based study

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 108, 期 5, 页码 1195-1208

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.6

关键词

breast cancer; survival; stage; population-based

类别

资金

  1. Department of Health, England (London, UK)
  2. Cancer Research UK [C1336/A11700]
  3. Northern Ireland Public Health Agency
  4. Department of Health
  5. Cancer Research UK [16148, 11700] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We investigate whether differences in breast cancer survival in six high-income countries can be explained by differences in stage at diagnosis using routine data from population-based cancer registries. Methods: We analysed the data on 257 362 women diagnosed with breast cancer during 2000-7 and registered in 13 population-based cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK. Flexible parametric hazard models were used to estimate net survival and the excess hazard of dying from breast cancer up to 3 years after diagnosis. Results: Age-standardised 3-year net survival was 87-89% in the UK and Denmark, and 91-94% in the other four countries. Stage at diagnosis was relatively advanced in Denmark: only 30% of women had Tumour, Nodes, Metastasis (TNM) stage I disease, compared with 42-45% elsewhere. Women in the UK had low survival for TNM stage III-IV disease compared with other countries. Conclusion: International differences in breast cancer survival are partly explained by differences in stage at diagnosis, and partly by differences in stage-specific survival. Low overall survival arises if the stage distribution is adverse (e. g. Denmark) but stage-specific survival is normal; or if the stage distribution is typical but stage-specific survival is low (e. g. UK). International differences in staging diagnostics and stage-specific cancer therapies should be investigated.

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