4.4 Article

Prior Diagnosis of Barrett's Esophagus Is Infrequent, but Associated with Improved Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Survival

期刊

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
卷 63, 期 11, 页码 3112-3119

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-018-5241-y

关键词

Esophageal neoplasms; Surveillance; Incidence; Mortality

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [P30 DK056338]
  2. NIDDK [K24-04-107]
  3. VA HSR&D Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX [CIN 13-413]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundEfforts to reduce mortality from esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) have focused on screening and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE).AimsWe sought to determine the frequency of prior diagnosis of BE in patients with EA and to evaluate the impact of a prior BE diagnosis on mortality in EA patients.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with EA in the VA during 2002-2016. We compared the distributions of EA stage and receipt of treatment between EA patients with and without a prior BE diagnosis and used Cox proportional hazards models to compare mortality risk (all-cause and cancer specific) unadjusted and adjusted for stage and treatment to assess their impact on any survival differences.ResultsAmong 8564 EA patients, only 4.9% had a prior BE diagnosis. The proportion with prior BE diagnosis increased from 3.2% in EA patients diagnosed during 2005-2007 to 7.0% in those diagnosed during 2014-2016. EA patients with a prior BE diagnosis were more likely to have stage 1 disease and receive any treatment. A prior BE diagnosis was associated with lower all-cause mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR] unadjusted for stage, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.61-0.80), which was largely explained by the earlier stage of EA at the time of diagnosis (HR adjusted for stage, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99). There was no evidence of lead time bias or length time bias.ConclusionsPrior diagnosis of BE was associated with better survival, largely due to earlier EA stage at diagnosis.

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

4.4
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