Explore the vast range of titles available.

Abstract Background Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) are rare cancers with outcomes determined by multiple factors including grade, stage, and clinical presentation. In this study, we aimed to determine the prognosis of patients with pNETs using a large population-based database. Materials and Methods In this population-based study, we identified patients with pNETs from the SEER 18 registry (2000-2016) using a combination of ICD-O-3 and histology codes. We calculated age-adjusted incidence rates using SEER*Stat 8.3.5. In addition, we analyzed overall survival (OS) using the Kaplan-Meier method, and investigated prognostic factors using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. Results A total of 8944 pNETs patients were identified. Annual incidence rates increased from 0.27 to 1.00 per 100 000. This was largely explained by an increase in number of patients diagnosed with localized disease in more recent years (2012-2016). Median OS was 68 months (95% CI [64, 73]) and 5-year OS rates in localized, regional, and metastatic disease were 83%, 67%, and 28%, respectively. There was a significant improvement in OS for patients diagnosed between 2009 and 2016 (median OS 85 months) compared with those diagnosed between 2000 and 2008 (median OS 46 months) (HR 0.66; 95% CI [0.62, 0.70]). This improvement in OS was consistent across all stages. Conclusions and Relevance This study shows a steady increase pNETs incidence with notable stage migration to earlier stages in recent years. This increase in incidence is accompanied by a significant improvement in survival across different disease stages. This study used the SEER cancer registry to research trends in the incidence and mortality rates of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in the United States over the past 2 decades.

Over half of patients diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are 65 years or older. We examined patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and survival among elderly patients in routine clinical practice. We utilized a retrospective cohort analysis of first primary AML patients in the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Patients were diagnosed between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2009, >66 years, and continuously enrolled in Medicare Part A and B in the year prior to diagnosis. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards regression assessed overall survival by treatment. There were 3327 (40 %) patients who received chemotherapy within 3 months of diagnosis. Treated patients were more likely younger, male, and married, and less likely to have secondary AML and poor performance indicators and comorbidity score compared to untreated patients. In multivariate survival analysis, treated patients exhibited a significant 33 % lower risk of death compared to untreated patients. Significant survival benefits were noted with receipt of intensive and hypomethylating agent (HMA) therapies compared to no therapy. A survival benefit with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was seen in younger Medicare patients. This real-world study showed that about 60 % of elderly AML patients remain untreated following diagnosis. Use of anti-leukemic therapy was associated with a significant survival benefit in this elderly cohort.

Background The features and survival of stage IV breast cancer patients with different metastatic sites are poorly understood. This study aims to examine the clinicopathological features and survival of stage IV breast cancer patients according to different metastatic sites. Methods Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, we restricted our study population to stage IV breast cancer patients diagnosed between 2010 to 2015. The clinicopathological features were examined by chi-square tests. Breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) were compared among patients with different metastatic sites by the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test. Univariable and multivariable analyses were also performed using the Cox proportional hazard model to identify statistically significant prognostic factors. Results A total of 18,322 patients were identified for survival analysis. Bone-only metastasis accounted for 39.80% of patients, followed by multiple metastasis (33.07%), lung metastasis (10.94%), liver metastasis (7.34%), other metastasis (7.34%), and brain metastasis (1.51%). The Kaplan-Meier plots showed that patients with bone metastasis had the best survival, while patients with brain metastasis had the worst survival in both BCSS and OS ( p  < 0.001, for both). Multivariable analyses showed that age, race, marital status, grade, tumor subtype, tumor size, surgery of primary cancer, and a history of radiotherapy or chemotherapy were independent prognostic factors. Conclusion Stage IV breast cancer patients have different clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes according to different metastatic sites. Patients with bone metastasis have the best prognosis, and brain metastasis is the most aggressive subgroup.

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a reliable nomogram to estimate overall survival in bladder cancer. Method: Patients diagnosed with bladder cancer identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database were randomly divided into training and validation cohorts. The powerful prognostic variables were examined using Cox regression analyses. A nomogram was developed on the prognostic factors. Results: The results suggested that age, sex, race, grade, histologic type, primary site, pathological stage, surgical treatment, and number of primary tumors, were the powerful prognostic factors. All these factors were integrated to construct the nomogram. The nomogram for predicting overall survival showed better discrimination power than the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage system 8th edition. Conclusion: The nomogram has the potential to provide an individualized prediction of overall survival in patients with bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND:The population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries collect information on first-course treatment, including surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and hormone therapy. However, the SEER program does not release data on chemotherapy or hormone therapy due to uncertainties regarding data completeness. Activities are ongoing to investigate the opportunity to supplement SEER treatment data with other data sources. METHODS:Using the linked SEER-Medicare data, we examined the validity of the SEER data to identify receipt of chemotherapy and radiation therapy among those aged 65 and older diagnosed from 2000 to 2006 with bladder, female breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian, pancreas, or prostate cancer and hormone therapy among men diagnosed with prostate cancer at age 65 or older. Treatment collected by SEER was compared with treatment as determined by Medicare claims, using Medicare claims as the gold standard. The κ, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were calculated for the receipt of each treatment modality. RESULTS:The overall sensitivity of SEER data to identify chemotherapy, radiation, and hormone therapy receipt was moderate (68%, 80%, and 69%, respectively) and varied by cancer site, stage, and patient characteristics. The overall positive predictive value was high (>85%) for all treatment types and cancer sites except chemotherapy for prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS:SEER data should not generally be used for comparisons of treated and untreated individuals or to estimate the proportion of treated individuals in the population. Augmenting SEER data with other data sources will provide the most accurate treatment information.

BACKGROUND:Comorbidity adjustment is an important component of health services research and clinical prognosis. When adjusting for comorbidities in statistical models, researchers can include comorbidities individually or through the use of summary measures such as the Charlson Comorbidity Index or Elixhauser score. We examined the conditions under which individual versus summary measures are most appropriate. METHODS:We provide an analytic proof of the utility of comorbidity summary measures when used in place of individual comorbidities. We compared the use of the Charlson and Elixhauser scores versus individual comorbidities in prognostic models using a SEER-Medicare data example. We examined the ability of summary comorbidity measures to adjust for confounding using simulations. RESULTS:We devised a mathematical proof that found that the comorbidity summary measures are appropriate prognostic or adjustment mechanisms in survival analyses. Once one knows the comorbidity score, no other information about the comorbidity variables used to create the score is generally needed. Our data example and simulations largely confirmed this finding. CONCLUSIONS:Summary comorbidity measures, such as the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Elixhauser scores, are commonly used for clinical prognosis and comorbidity adjustment. We have provided a theoretical justification that validates the use of such scores under many conditions. Our simulations generally confirm the utility of the summary comorbidity measures as substitutes for use of the individual comorbidity variables in health services research. One caveat is that a summary measure may only be as good as the variables used to create it.

PurposeEvidence suggests substantial disparities in breast cancer survival by socioeconomic status (SES). We examine the extent to which receipt of newer, less invasive, or more effective treatments—a plausible source of disparities in survival—varies by SES among elderly women with early-stage breast cancer.MethodsMultivariate regression analyses applied to 11,368 women (age 66–90 years) identified from SEER-Medicare as having invasive breast cancer diagnosed in 2006–2009. Socioeconomic status was defined based on Medicaid enrollment and level of poverty of the census tract of residence. All analyses controlled for demographic, clinical health status, spatial, and healthcare system characteristics.ResultsPoor and near-poor women were less likely than high SES women to receive sentinel lymph node biopsy and radiation after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Poor women were also less likely than near-poor or high SES women to receive any axillary surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. There were no significant differences in use of aromatase inhibitors (AI) between poor and high SES women. However, near-poor women who initiated hormonal therapy were more likely to rely exclusively on tamoxifen, and less likely to use the more expensive but more effective AI when compared to both poor and high SES women.ConclusionsOur results indicate that SES disparities in the receipt of treatments for incident breast cancer are both pervasive and substantial. These disparities remained despite women’s geographic area of residence and extent of disease, suggesting important gaps in access to effective breast cancer care.

Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths in the United States and compiles the most recent data on population-based cancer occurrence and outcomes. Incidence data (through 2018) were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data (through 2019) were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2022, 1,918,030 new cancer cases and 609,360 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States, including approximately 350 deaths per day from lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer death. Incidence during 2014 through 2018 continued a slow increase for female breast cancer (by 0.5% annually) and remained stable for prostate cancer, despite a 4% to 6% annual increase for advanced disease since 2011. Consequently, the proportion of prostate cancer diagnosed at a distant stage increased from 3.9% to 8.2% over the past decade. In contrast, lung cancer incidence continued to decline steeply for advanced disease while rates for localized-stage increased suddenly by 4.5% annually, contributing to gains both in the proportion of localized-stage diagnoses (from 17% in 2004 to 28% in 2018) and 3-year relative survival (from 21% to 31%). Mortality patterns reflect incidence trends, with declines accelerating for lung cancer, slowing for breast cancer, and stabilizing for prostate cancer. In summary, progress has stagnated for breast and prostate cancers but strengthened for lung cancer, coinciding with changes in medical practice related to cancer screening and/or treatment. More targeted cancer control interventions and investment in improved early detection and treatment would facilitate reductions in cancer mortality.

This article is the American Cancer Society's biennial update on female breast cancer statistics in the United States, including data on incidence, mortality, survival, and screening. Over the most recent 5‐year period (2012‐2016), the breast cancer incidence rate increased slightly by 0.3% per year, largely because of rising rates of local stage and hormone receptor‐positive disease. In contrast, the breast cancer death rate continues to decline, dropping 40% from 1989 to 2017 and translating to 375,900 breast cancer deaths averted. Notably, the pace of the decline has slowed from an annual decrease of 1.9% during 1998 through 2011 to 1.3% during 2011 through 2017, largely driven by the trend in white women. Consequently, the black–white disparity in breast cancer mortality has remained stable since 2011 after widening over the past 3 decades. Nevertheless, the death rate remains 40% higher in blacks (28.4 vs 20.3 deaths per 100,000) despite a lower incidence rate (126.7 vs 130.8); this disparity is magnified among black women aged <50 years, who have a death rate double that of whites. In the most recent 5‐year period (2013‐2017), the death rate declined in Hispanics (2.1% per year), blacks (1.5%), whites (1.0%), and Asians/Pacific Islanders (0.8%) but was stable in American Indians/Alaska Natives. However, by state, breast cancer mortality rates are no longer declining in Nebraska overall; in Colorado and Wisconsin in black women; and in Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia in white women. Breast cancer was the leading cause of cancer death in women (surpassing lung cancer) in four Southern and two Midwestern states among blacks and in Utah among whites during 2016‐2017. Declines in breast cancer mortality could be accelerated by expanding access to high‐quality prevention, early detection, and treatment services to all women.