4.6 Article

An international assessment of ovarian cancer incidence and mortality

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 130, 期 1, 页码 107-114

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.03.026

关键词

Ovarian cancer; Incidence; Survival; GLOBOCAN; SEER

资金

  1. Amgen Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To assess and characterize the temporal variation in ovarian cancer incidence and mortality by age within countries in the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Oceania. Methods/Materials. Data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program in the United States (U.S.) were used to assess ovarian cancer incidence rates (1998-2008) and mortality rates, (1988-2007 for 12-month survival, 1988-2006 for 24-month survival, and 1988-2003 for 60-month survival), stratified by age at diagnosis. Data from GLOBOCAN were used to calculate country-specific incidence rates for 2010 and 2020 and case-fatality rates for 2010. Results. A statistically significant decrease in Annual Percent Change (APC) of ovarian cancer incidence was observed in the U.S. for all women (-1.03%), among women who were diagnosed at <65 years of age (-1.09%) and among women who were diagnosed at >= 65 years of age (-0.95%). There was a statistically significant increase in the observed APC for survival at 12-months (0.19%), 24-months (0.58%), and 60-months (0.72%) for all women; however, 5-year survival for advanced stage (III or IV) disease was low at less than 50% for women <65 years and less than 30% for women >= 65 years. Global results showed a wide range in ovarian cancer incidence rates, with China exhibiting the lowest rates and the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom exhibiting the highest rates. Conclusions. Ovarian cancer survival has shown modest improvement from a statistical perspective in the U.S. However, it is difficult to ascertain how clinically relevant these improvements are at the population or patient level. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.6
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