| 1. |
- Blom, Johannes, et al.
(författare)
-
A 9-year follow-up study of participants and nonparticipants in sigmoidoscopy screening : importance of self-selection
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention. - 1055-9965 .- 1538-7755. ; 17:5, s. 1163-1168
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Self-selection may compromise cost-effectiveness of screening programs. We hypothesized that nonparticipants have generally higher morbidity and mortality than participants. METHODS: A Swedish population-based random sample of 1,986 subjects ages 59 to 61 years was invited to sigmoidoscopy screening and followed up for 9 years by means of multiple record linkages to health and population registers. Gender-adjusted cancer incidence rate ratio (IRR) and overall and disease group-specific and mortality rate ratio (MRR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated for nonparticipants relative to participants. Cancer and mortality rates were also estimated relative to the age-matched, gender-matched, and calendar period-matched Swedish population using standardized incidence ratios and standardized mortality ratios. RESULTS: Thirty-nine percent participated. The incidence of colorectal cancer (IRR, 2.2; 95% CI, 0.8-5.9), other gastrointestinal cancer (IRR, 2.7; 95% CI, 0.6-12.8), lung cancer (IRR, 2.2; 95% CI, 0.8-5.9), and smoking-related cancer overall (IRR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.7-2.5) tended to be increased among nonparticipants relative to participants. Standardized incidence ratios for most of the studied cancers tended to be >1.0 among nonparticipants and <1.0 among participants. Mortality from all causes (MRR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7-3.4), neoplastic diseases (MRR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.5), gastrointestinal cancer (MRR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.1-20.7), and circulatory diseases (MRR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.2) was significantly higher among nonparticipants than among participants. Standardized mortality ratio for the studied outcomes tended to be increased among nonparticipants and was generally decreased among participants. CONCLUSION: Individuals who might benefit most from screening are overrepresented among nonparticipants. This self-selection may attenuate the cost-effectiveness of screening programs on a population level.
|
|
| 2. |
- Morris, Eva J. A., et al.
(författare)
-
A population-based comparison of the survival of patients with colorectal cancer in England, Norway and Sweden between 1996 and 2004
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Gut. - : BMJ. - 0017-5749 .- 1468-3288. ; 60:8, s. 1087-1093
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective To examine differences in the relative survival and excess death rates of patients with colorectal cancer in Norway, Sweden and England. Methods All individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer (ICD10 (International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision) C18-C20) between 1996 and 2004 in England, Norway and Sweden were included in this population-based study of patients with colorectal cancer. The main outcome measures were 5-year cumulative relative period of survival and excess death rates stratified by age and period of follow-up. Results The survival of English patients with colorectal cancer was significantly lower than was observed in both Norway and Sweden. Five-year age-standardised colon cancer relative survival was 51.1% (95% CI 50.1% to 52.0%) in England compared with 57.9% (95% CI 55.2% to 60.5%) in Norway and 59.9% (95% CI 57.7% to 62.0%) in Sweden. Five-year rectal cancer survival was 52.3% (95% CI 51.1% to 53.5%) in England compared with 60.7% (95% CI 57.0% to 64.2%) and 59.8% (95% CI 56.9% to 62.6%) in Norway and Sweden, respectively. The lower survival for colon cancer in England was primarily due to a high number of excess deaths among older patients in the first 3 months after diagnosis. In patients with rectal cancer, excess deaths remained elevated until 2 years of follow-up. If the lower excess death rate in Norway applied in the English population, then 890 (13.6%) and 654 (16.8%) of the excess deaths in the colon and rectal cancer populations, respectively, could have been prevented at 5 years follow-up. Most of these avoidable deaths occurred shortly after diagnosis. Conclusions There was significant variation in survival between the countries, with the English population experiencing a poorer outcome, primarily due to a relatively higher number of excess deaths in older patients in the short term after diagnosis. It seems likely, therefore, that in England a greater proportion of the population present with more rapidly fatal disease (especially in the older age groups) than in Norway or Sweden.
|
|
| 3. |
- Møller, Henrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Colorectal cancer survival in socioeconomic groups in England : Variation is mainly in the short term after diagnosis
- 2012
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Cancer. - : Elsevier BV. - 0959-8049 .- 1879-0852. ; 48:1, s. 46-53
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The objective of this study was to examine differences in cancer survival between socioeconomic groups in England, with particular attention to survival in the short term of follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer between 1996 and 2004 in England were identified from cancer registry records. Five-year cumulative relative survival and excess death rates were computed. RESULTS: For colon cancer there was a very high excess death rate in the first month of follow-up, and the excess death rate was highest in the socioeconomically deprived groups. In subsequent periods, excess mortality rates were much lower and there was less socioeconomic variation. The pattern of variation in excess death rates was generally similar in rectal cancer but the socioeconomic difference in death rates persisted several years longer. If the excess death rates in the entire colorectal cancer patient population were the same as those observed in the most affluent socioeconomic quintile, the annual reduction would be 360 deaths in colon cancer and 336 deaths in rectal cancer patients. These deaths occurred almost entirely in the first month and the first year after diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Recent developments in the national cancer control agenda have included an increasing emphasis on outcome measures, with short-term cancer survival an operational measure of variation and progress in cancer control. In providing clues to the nature of the survival differences between socioeconomic groups, the results presented here give strong support for this strategy.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Birgisson, Helgi, et al.
(författare)
-
Late adverse effects of radiation therapy for rectal cancer : a systematic overview
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Acta Oncologica. - : Informa UK Limited. - 0284-186X .- 1651-226X. ; 46:4, s. 504-516
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: The use of radiation therapy (RT) together with improvement in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer improves survival and reduces the risk for local recurrences. Despite these benefits, the adverse effects of radiation therapy limit its use. The aim of this review was to present a comprehensive overview of published studies on late adverse effects related to the RT for rectal cancer. METHODS: Meta-analyses, reviews, randomised clinical trials, cohort studies and case-control studies on late adverse effects, due to pre- or postoperative radiation therapy and chemo-radiotherapy for rectal cancer, were systematically searched. Most information was obtained from the randomised trials, especially those comparing preoperative short-course 5 x 5 Gy radiation therapy with surgery alone. RESULTS: The late adverse effects due to RT were bowel obstructions; bowel dysfunction presented as faecal incontinence to gas, loose or solid stools, evacuation problems or urgency; and sexual dysfunction. However, fewer late adverse effects were reported in recent studies, which generally used smaller irradiated volumes and better irradiation techniques; although, one study revealed an increased risk for secondary cancers in irradiated patients. CONCLUSIONS: These results stress the importance of careful patient selection for RT for rectal cancer. Improvements in the radiation technique should further be developed and the long-term follow-up of the randomised trials is the most important source of information on late adverse effects and should therefore be continued.
|
|
| 7. |
- Birgisson, Helgi, et al.
(författare)
-
The correlation between a family history of colorectal cancer and survival of patients with colorectal cancer
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Familial Cancer. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1389-9600 .- 1573-7292. ; 8:4, s. 555-561
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The purpose was to analyze survival of patients with colorectal cancer and a positive family history for colorectal cancer in first degree relatives compared with those with no such family history and to determine whether differences in survival could be explained by known clinico-pathological factors. During 2000-2003, 318 consecutive patients with colorectal cancer answered a written questionnaire about their family history for colorectal cancer. During a 6-year follow-up, recurrences and survival were registered. Thirty-one (10%) patients had a first-degree relative with colorectal cancer, moreover two patients fulfilled the criteria of hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer and were excluded. Patients with a first-degree relative with colorectal cancer had better survival and lower risk for recurrences compared to those with no relatives with colorectal cancer. In a multivariate analysis including age, gender, stage of disease, tumor differentiation, vascular invasion and family history, patients with first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer had lower risks for death (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.17-0.78) and death from cancer (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.08-0.80), compared to those with a no relative with colorectal cancer. The differences were seen in patients with colon cancer but not rectal cancer. Family history for colorectal cancer in a first-degree relative is an individual prognostic factor in patients with colon cancer and could not be explained by known clinico-pathological factors. The value of family history taking in patients with colon cancer is therefore not only to identify families with hereditary colorectal cancer, but also to add information to the prognosis of the patients.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Braendengen, Morten, et al.
(författare)
-
Randomized phase III study comparing preoperative radiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy in nonresectable rectal cancer
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 26:22, s. 3687-3694
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy is considered standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer, although the scientific evidence for the chemotherapy addition is limited. This trial investigated whether chemotherapy as part of a multidisciplinary treatment approach would improve downstaging, survival, and relapse rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The randomized study included 207 patients with locally nonresectable T4 primary rectal carcinoma or local recurrence from rectal carcinoma in the period 1996 to 2003. The patients received either chemotherapy (fluorouracil/leucovorin) administered concurrently with radiotherapy (50 Gy) and adjuvant for 16 weeks after surgery (CRT group, n = 98) or radiotherapy alone (50 Gy; RT group, n = 109). RESULTS: The two groups were well balanced according to pretreatment characteristics. An R0 resection was performed in 82 patients (84%) in the CRT group and in 74 patients (68%) in the RT group (P = .009). Pathologic complete response was seen in 16% and 7%, respectively. After an R0 + R1 resection, local recurrence was found in 5% and 7%, and distant metastases in 26% and 39%, respectively. Local control (82% v 67% at 5 years; log-rank P = .03), time to treatment failure (63% v 44%; P = .003), cancer-specific survival (72% v 55%; P = .02), and overall survival (66% v 53%; P = .09) all favored the CRT group. Grade 3 or 4 toxicity, mainly GI, was seen in 28 (29%) of 98 and six (6%) of 109, respectively (P = .001). There was no difference in late toxicity. CONCLUSION: CRT improved local control, time to treatment failure, and cancer-specific survival compared with RT alone in patients with nonresectable rectal cancer. The treatments were well tolerated.
|
|
| 10. |
- Breugom, A. J., et al.
(författare)
-
Adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer patients treated with preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy and total mesorectal excision : a Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG) randomized phase III trial
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Annals of Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0923-7534 .- 1569-8041. ; 26:4, s. 696-701
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The discussion on the role of adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer patients treated according to current guidelines is still ongoing. A multicentre, randomized phase III trial, PROCTOR-SCRIPT, was conducted to compare adjuvant chemotherapy with observation for rectal cancer patients treated with preoperative (chemo) radiotherapy and total mesorectal excision (TME). Patients and methods: The PROCTOR-SCRIPT trial recruited patients from 52 hospitals. Patients with histologically proven stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned (1: 1) to observation or adjuvant chemotherapy after preoperative (chemo) radiotherapy and TME. Radiotherapy consisted of 5 x 5 Gy. Chemoradiotherapy consisted of 25 x 1.8-2 Gy combined with 5-FU-based chemotherapy. Adjuvant chemotherapy consisted of 5-FU/LV (PROCTOR) or eight courses capecitabine (SCRIPT). Randomization was based on permuted blocks of six, stratified according to centre, residual tumour, time between last irradiation and surgery, and preoperative treatment. The primary end point was overall survival. Results: Of 470 enrolled patients, 437 were eligible. The trial closed prematurely because of slow patient accrual. Patients were randomly assigned to observation (n = 221) or adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 216). After a median follow-up of 5.0 years, 5-year overall survival was 79.2% in the observation group and 80.4% in the chemotherapy group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-1.39; P = 0.73]. The HR for disease-free survival was 0.80 (95% CI 0.60-1.07; P = 0.13). Five-year cumulative incidence for locoregional recurrences was 7.8% in both groups. Five-year cumulative incidence for distant recurrences was 38.5% and 34.7%, respectively (P = 0.39). Conclusion: The PROCTOR-SCRIPT trial could not demonstrate a significant benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy with fluoropyrimidine monotherapy after preoperative (chemo) radiotherapy and TME on overall survival, disease-free survival, and recurrence rate. However, this trial did not complete planned accrual.
|
|
