4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Influence of Demographic Factors on Outcome of Collecting Duct Carcinoma: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database Analysis

期刊

CLINICAL GENITOURINARY CANCER
卷 7, 期 2, 页码 E24-E27

出版社

CIG MEDIA GROUP, LP
DOI: 10.3816/CGC.2009.n.017

关键词

Kidney cancer; Nephrectomy; Radiotherapy; Outcomes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Collecting duct carcinoma (CDC) is a rare tumor that is difficult to analyze in a single-institution setting. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was used to examine demographics and outcomes of CDC. Patients and Methods: The SEER registry was queried for patients diagnosed with CDC from 1973 to 2004 who also had available demographic, stage, and survival information (n = 98). Stage at presentation as a function of gender and as a function of race were compared using the chi(2) test. Relative survival (RS) curves were computed and were compared using the log-rank test; stage-specific relative survival rates were compared across subgroups using the chi(2) test. Stage at presentation was not influenced by race (P = .5) or by gender (P = .488). Results: Three-year relative survival rates for localized, regional, and distant disease were 93%, 45%, and 6%, respectively (P < .001). Three-year RS were 58% and 33% for White and Black patients, respectively (P = .354), and for males and females, RS was 58% and 45%, respectively (P = .475). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in 3-year stage-specific relative survival rates by race (P = .425) or gender (P = .245). Conclusion: this study is the largest analysis of CDC and the first to explore the influence of demographic factors on outcomes. Within stated limitations, there appear to be no significant differences in patterns of disease presentation or relative survival rates based on race or sex. Further work is needed to improve outcomes, particularly for patients with regional or distant disease at presentation.

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

4.3
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