4.7 Article

Cause of death and long-term survival in patients with neuro-epithelial brain tumours: a population-based study

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 39, 期 16, 页码 2355-2363

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-8049(03)00603-8

关键词

long-term survival; brain tumour; cause of death; adults; children

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Long-term survivors of neuro-epithelial brain tumours have a higher death rate compared with the general population and the aims of this study were to investigate the causes of death and analyse long-term survival using population-based material. A total of 6209 patients were registered in the period of 1970-1993 with a primary intracranial neuro-epithelial tumour in the The Norwegian Cancer Registry. In a pilot study, a high level of agreement with regard to the cause of death was found between clinical data and the registered cause of death. Underlying causes of death in the whole population were therefore analysed. Most deaths were caused by the primary neuro-epithelial brain tumour within 10 years of diagnosis. Although the numbers were small, the proportion of patients dying from other cancers, vascular disease, infections and accidents continued to rise with time. Survival was computed using the Kaplan-Meier method. For children, survival at 5, 10 and 15 years significantly improved from the time period of 1970-1981 to 1982-1993 (47.9, 43.6 and 43.3% versus 63.8, 59.8 and 59.8%, respectively, P<0.0001). Similar improvements in survival at 5, 10 and 15 years were observed for young adults aged 15-49 years (32.7, 21.3 and 16.5% versus 50.1, 37.5 and 33.1%, for the same time periods, P<0.0001). No such improvement for those aged 50 years and over was observed (corresponding figures of 6.6, 3.8 and 2.8% versus 7.7, 4.8 and 3.4%). Prognosis for those with childhood medulloblastomas improved significantly, as did the prognosis of younger adults with low-grade gliomas and unbiopsied/ unclassifiable grade gliomas. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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