男性乳腺癌125例患者的临床病理特征与生存分析

目的:探讨男性乳腺癌患者的临床病理特征以及治疗和生存情况,并进行预后相关因素的分析.方法:回顾性分析1961年1月-2011年12月共125例男性乳腺癌患者的病历资料和随访资料.采用log-rank检验和COX回归模型分析与男性乳腺癌患者预后相关的因素.结果:125例男性乳腺癌患者的5年总生存率为60.5％,5年无病生存率为54.8％.单因素分析结果显示,是否有恶性肿瘤家族史(P=0.041)、肿瘤大小(P＝0.005)、临床TNM分期(P=0.005)、腋窝淋巴结是否转移(P=0.013)和是否行乳腺癌根治术(P=0.016)是与男性乳腺癌患者总生存率相关的预后因素,而是否有恶性肿瘤家族史(P=0.015)、肿瘤大小(P=0.000)、临床TNM分期(P=0.002)和腋窝淋巴结是否转移(P=0.010)是与男性乳腺癌患者无病生存率相关的预后因素.COX回归模型分析结果显示,肿瘤大小(P=0.045)、腋窝淋巴结是否转移(P=0.026)和是否行乳腺癌根治术(P=0.000)是与总生存率相关的独立预后因素,而肿瘤大小(P=0.010)和是否行乳腺癌根治术(P=0.001)是与无病生存率相关的独立预后因素.结论:肿瘤大小、腋窝淋巴结是否转移和是否行乳腺癌根治术是影响男性乳腺癌患者预后的独立危险因素,早期诊断以及以乳腺癌根治术为主的综合治疗措施是提高男性乳腺癌患者生存率的关键.     

81例男性乳腺癌临床特征及生存分析

目的探讨男性乳腺癌的临床特点、治疗和预后。方法回顾性分析81例男性乳腺癌患者的临床及病理特征、复发转移及生存情况。结果本组5年无病生存率和5年总生存率分别为63.6%和77.7%。单因素分析结果显示,影响患者无病生存时间的因素有肿物大小（P=0.002）、淋巴结状况（P=0.041）、临床分期（P=0.000）和辅助化疗（P=0.033）。影响本组患者总生存时间的因素有肿瘤大小（P=0.002）、淋巴结状况（P=0.012）、临床分期（P=0.000）和辅助化疗（P=0.040）。COX多因素分析示临床分期（P=0.000）和辅助化疗（P=0.018）为影响患者无病生存时间的独立因素;同时,临床分期（P=0.000）和辅助化疗（P=0.012）也是影响患者总生存时间的独立因素。结论男性乳腺癌发病率低,预后较差,病理类型以浸润性导管癌为主。以手术为主的综合治疗为其公认的治疗模式,其预后与临床分期和辅助化疗有关。应注意早期诊断和治疗,并重视术后辅助化疗等综合治疗。     

乳腺癌临床特征与预后分析

目的：总结经综合治疗的233例乳腺癌患者的临床病理特征及生存情况,探讨影响乳腺癌预后的因素。方法：建立乳腺癌患者的临床资料库,采用SPSS8.0统计软件对临床数据进行单因素及多因素生存分析,以发现影响乳腺癌长期生存的因素。结果：所有患者1、2、3、5和8年生存率分别为95.71%（223/233）、82.83%（193/233）、61.37%（143/233）、37.34%（87/233）和6.87%（16/233）。单因素分析显示腋淋巴结转移数目;原发肿瘤大小与生存呈负相关（P均〈0.001）;TNM晚期患者复发转移的患者中位生存明显缩短（P均〈0.0001）;术后辅助化疗方案选择含有蒽环类的方案组生存期优于不含有蒽环类的方案组（P〈0.05,X^2=9.99）;病理类型治疗方式与生存时间相关（P均〈0.01）。COX比例风险模型分析显示治疗方式、术后辅助性化疗方案和复发转移具有独立预后意义（P〈0.05）。Logistic分析结果显示,原发肿瘤大小、腋窝淋巴结转移状态、病理类型、综合治疗方式是影响乳腺癌复发转移的主要因素,其影响程度的排序依次是腋窝淋巴结转移、原发肿瘤大小、病理类型、综合治疗方式（P〈0.0001）。结论：乳腺癌患者的远期生存及复发转移与原发肿瘤大小、腋窝淋巴结转移状态、病理类型、术后化疗方案的选择及个体化综合治疗方式密切相关。     

肺癌组织中Cox-2蛋白表达及对预后影响的研究

目的：探讨Cox-2蛋白在肺癌组织中的表达水平及其对预后的影响。方法：应用免疫组化方法检测116例肺癌组织中Cox-2蛋白表达水平，并用CD34标记血管计数肿瘤组织中微血管密度。结果：i16例肺癌组织中，Cox-2蛋白阳性78例（67.2％）。Cox-2蛋白的表达与肿瘤TNM分期（P=0.014）及其淋巴结转移情况（P=0.009）密切相关，且阳性表达的肺癌组织中微血管密度明显高于阴性表达者，P=0.000。COX模型多因素分析显示，淋巴结的转移（P=0．004）和Cox-2蛋白的阳性表达（P=0.000）是肺癌患者的预后不良因素。结论：Cox-2蛋白阳性表达可作为判断肺癌患者预后不良的潜在指标。     

环氧合酶-2和血管内皮生长因子-C在乳腺癌组织中的表达及预后生存分析

[目的]评价乳腺癌组织中环氧合酶-2(COX-2)和血管内皮生长因子-C(VEGF-C)在基因及蛋白水平表达,分析两者与乳腺癌患者预后的关系.[方法]采用免疫组化SP法和QRT-PCR法分别检测150例乳腺癌组织中COX-2和VEGF-C在mRNA和蛋白水平表达,并采用Kaplan-meier法和COX风险回归模型分析与乳腺癌预后生存的相关危险因素.[结果]乳腺癌组织中COX-2和VEGF-C在mRNA和蛋白水平率均高于乳腺良性组织(58.8％ vs 41.2％和58.9％ vs 41.1％,P＜0.01).单因素结果显示患者COX-2表达、临床分期、腋窝淋巴结转移、Her-2表达、组织学分级与患者的预后有关;COX多因素分析显示肿瘤大小和腋窝淋巴结是影响乳腺癌患者预后的因素.[结论]乳腺癌患者COX-2和VEGF-C表达上调,乳腺癌组织中肿瘤大小、腋窝淋巴结转移是乳腺癌患者预后的影响因素.     

Cripto-1 蛋白在乳腺癌中的表达和预后意义*

目的:研究具有促进上皮间质转化作用的Cripto- 1 蛋白在乳腺癌中的表达及意义。方法:采用免疫组织化学LSAB法检测205 例乳腺癌标本中Cripto- 1、E-cadherin（E-CD）及β-catenin 的表达,并分析Cripto- 1 蛋白与E-CD及β-catenin 的关系,同时分析Cripto- 1 蛋白与临床病理学特征、复发转移及生存时间的关系。结果:Cripto- 1 蛋白表达于癌细胞质,阳性表达率为82.9%（170/205）,其表达与病理组织学分期（r=0.418,P=0.000）、HER2/neu （r=0.223,P=0.001）、淋巴结转移个数（r=0.293,P=0.000）、淋巴结外软组织癌浸润（r=0.206,P=0.003）、肿瘤远处转移（r=0.273,P=0.000）呈正相关;而与ER、PR表达及年龄无明显相关性;在179例浸润性导管癌中Cripto- 1 蛋白的表达与其组织学分级（r=0.194,P=0.009）呈正相关;E-CD表达在肿瘤细胞膜,而β-catenin 除了表达在细胞膜外还表达在细胞质。Cripto- 1 的表达与E-CD呈明显负相关（r=-0.324,P=0.000）,而与β-catenin 在胞质中的表达呈明显正相关（r=0.412,P=0.000）;Mann-Whitney检验结果显示Cripto- 1 蛋白在淋巴结阳性组的表达明显高于阴性组（Z=-3.465,P=0.001）;在远处转移组的表达明显高于无远处转移组（Z=-3.899,P=0.000）;Kaplan-Meier 生存分析结果显示Cripto- 1 蛋白的表达程度与患者的生存率呈明显负相关（P<0.05）;Cox-Regression证明Cripto- 1 蛋白的表达是乳腺癌独立的预后因素（HR= 2.353）。结论:Cripto- 1 蛋白可能通过EMT 促进乳腺癌的侵袭和转移,其表达与乳腺癌的侵袭、转移密切相关,是导致预后不良的重要因素之一,可作为乳腺癌的独立预后因子。      

蛋白酪氨酸磷酸酶受体J在乳腺癌组织中的表达及其与临床预后的相关性

目的：探讨蛋白酪氨酸磷酸酶受体J（PTPRJ）在乳腺癌中的表达,并分析其与临床病理指标和预后的关系。方法：应用免疫组化SP法检测198例乳腺癌组织及其配对癌旁正常组织中PTPRJ的表达情况,并分析PTPRJ表达与乳腺癌临床病理指标及预后的关系。结果：免疫组化染色结果显示PTPRJ在癌旁正常组织中的表达显著高于乳腺癌组织（P=0.003）,PTPRJ表达水平与淋巴结转移（P=0.014）、TNM分期（P=0.003）,ER状态相关（P=0.048）。Kaplan-Meier生存分析显示PTPRJ低表达组患者的总生存率明显低于PTPRJ高表达组（P=0.002）。多因素COX比例风险模型分析显示TNM分期和PTPRJ表达是影响患者总生存的独立预后因素。结论：PTPRJ在乳腺癌中低表达,与肿瘤进展密切相关,可作为评价乳腺癌患者预后的有效指标之一。     

Ki67、增殖细胞核抗原在不同分子分型乳腺癌组织中的表达及意义

目的探讨Ki67、增殖细胞核抗原（PCNA）在不同分子类型乳腺癌组织中的表达及临床意义。方法采用免疫组化法检测251例乳腺癌组织中Ki67、PCNA的表达情况,采用kruskal—wallis秩和检验分析Ki67、PCNA在不同分子类型乳腺癌组织中的表达差异;采用Spearman相关分析法,分析不同分子类型中Ki67与PCNA表达的相关性及其分别与原发肿瘤直径、腋窝淋巴结转移及病理组织学分级的相关性;采用生存分析法,分析Ki67、PCNA对乳腺癌预后的意义。结果Luminal型、HER-2型及三阴性乳腺癌组织中Ki67、PCNA表达强度差异均无统计学意义（X^2=3．722,P=0．155;）（X^2=5．135,P=0．077）。Ki67与PCNA总体呈正相关（r1=0．348,P=0．000）,在Luminal型中呈正相关（r3=0．467,P=0．000）,而在HER-2型、三阴性乳腺癌中无相关性（P〉0．05）。Ki67表达强度与原发肿瘤直径、腋窝淋巴结转移及组织学分级在Luminal型乳腺癌呈正相关性（r1=0．180,P：0．017;rs=0．236,P=0．002;0=0．156,P=0．039）,而在HER-2型及三阴性乳腺癌中无相关性（P〉0．05）。PCNA表达强度与Luminal型乳腺癌的腋窝淋巴结转移呈正相关性（r1=0．166,P=0．028）,与HER-2型乳腺癌的原发肿瘤直径呈负相关性（r1=-0．342,P=0．020）,与其他病理因素均无相关性（P〉0．05）。单因素生存分析显示腋窝淋巴结转移、组织学分级对乳腺癌患者无瘤生存有影响（HR=4．431,95％CI：1．787～10．984;HR=2．492,95％C,：1．032～6．018）,亚组分析显示腋窝淋巴结、PCNA对Luminal型乳腺癌患者无瘤生存有影响（HR=3．930,95％C1：1．343～11．501;HR=2．401,95％C1：1．044—5．524）。多因素COX回归分析显示腋窝淋巴结转移是总体和Luminal型乳腺癌患者预后的独立影响因素（HR=3．780,95％CI：1．461—9．775;HR=3．403,95％CI：1．150～10．075）。结论Ki67和PCNA对评估Luminal型乳腺癌预后有一定指导意义,而对HER-2型和三阴性乳腺癌预后无明显影响。     

乳腺癌组织中E-cad、Ki-67的表达及其与临床病理特征和腋窝淋巴结转移的相关性

目的:通过检测乳腺癌组织中E-cad、Ki-67的表达,探究其与临床病理特征和腋窝淋巴结转移的相关性。方法:回顾性选取2017年05月至2019年12月我院甲乳外科收治的135例女性乳腺癌患者病理资料及石蜡组织做标本。采用免疫组化染色法检测乳腺癌患者组织中E-cad及Ki-67的表达情况;根据腋窝淋巴结转移与否分为转移组和非转移组,分析腋窝淋巴结转移与临床病理及E-cad和Ki-67表达的关系;Pearson检验分析腋窝淋巴结转移与E-cad、Ki-67表达的相关性。结果:135例乳腺癌患者术后病理证实79例发生腋窝淋巴结转移,总转移率为58.5%。免疫组化结果显示,乳腺癌组织中E-cad主要定位于细胞膜,Ki-67主要定位于细胞质和（或）细胞核。135例乳腺癌患者中E-cad阳性表达率为57.8%,Ki-67阳性表达率为68.1%。腋窝淋巴结转移与肿瘤大小、脉管浸润、组织学分级、肿瘤T分期、分子分型、AR、E-cad及Ki-67等显著相关（P＜0.05）。肿瘤大小、脉管浸润、组织学分级、AR、E-cad及Ki-67表达是影响乳腺癌患者腋窝淋巴结转移的危险因素（P＜0.05）。Pearson检验显示E-cad表达与腋窝淋巴结转移呈负相关（r=-0.476,P=0.000）,Ki-67表达与腋窝淋巴结转移呈正相关（r=0.554,P=0.000）。结论:乳腺癌组织中E-cad表达与腋窝淋巴结转移呈负相关,Ki-67表达与腋窝淋巴结转移呈正相关;E-cad低表达与Ki-67高表达在乳腺癌浸润转移过程中可能发挥一定作用,通过检测E-cad及Ki-67表达水平可预测乳腺癌患者腋窝淋巴结转移情况,对判断患者预后具有重要临床意义。     

356 例三阴性乳腺癌的临床特征及预后多因素分析

目的:分析三阴性与非三阴性乳腺癌患者临床病理学特征的差异,了解两组患者的生存状态,探讨三阴性乳腺癌患者的独立预后影响因素。方法:收集本院356 例三阴性乳腺癌患者的临床病理学特征、复发转移及生存情况等资料,采用SPSS13.0统计软件进行分析,频数资料组间比较采用χ2检验。临床病理指标单因素分析采用Kaplan-Meier 法,组间曲线比较用Log-Rank检验,多因素分析采用Cox 回归分析。取P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果:比较三阴组与非三阴组临床病理学特点,发现三阴性乳腺癌患者中年龄小于35岁者为8.43%（P=0.000）,Ⅲ期患者为21.91%（P=0.022）,肿瘤直径>5cm者为13.91%（P=0.000）,腋窝淋巴结阳性者为56.46%（P=0.017）,组织学分级Ⅲ级患者为21.35%（P=0.002）。 两组5 年无瘤生存率和累计总生存率的差异均具有统计学意义（P=0.010,P=0.003）。 单因素分析结果显示影响三阴乳腺癌患者总生存率的因素有临床分期、肿瘤大小、淋巴结状态。多因素分析结果显示淋巴结状态为三阴乳腺癌患者总生存率的独立预后因素。结论:与非三阴组相比,三阴性乳腺癌具有肿瘤体积较大,组织学分级较高,诊断时分期较晚,无病生存及总生存率均较低,较早发生转移的高危特点。明确患者年龄、病理类型、肿瘤大小、临床分期、组织学分级,特别是淋巴结状态对于判断预后有重要指导意义。      

Relative Survival of Breast Cancer Patients in Iran

Background: The survival rate reflecting prognosis of breast cancer patients is usually estimated based on crudesurvival methods such as observed and cause-specific. In situations where data are based on population-cancerregistries, this method may produce biased estimations. This study therefore aimed to estimate the net survival ofbreast cancer based on relative survival. Materials and Methods: Data for 622 breast cancer patients diagnosedat the Iran Cancer Institute during 1990-95 and tracked till the end of 2000 were analyzed. For estimation ofrelative survival, Ederer’s second method and SAS (9.1) and STATA (11) software were used. Results: Threeyearrelative survivals of 85%, 90%, 80% and 67% were observed for age groups 15-44, 55-59, 60-74, and 75+years-old, respectively. A relative survival of approximately one was observed for two subsequent years forage-group 45-59 years-old. A value greater than one for two subsequent years of follow-up was observed in theage-group 60-74 years-old. Conclusions: Tracking the diagnosis of breast cancer, the relative survival decreasesas we go to higher age-groups. It is also perceived that through follow-up, relative survival first decreased andthen increased a little. The statistical cure point is acceptable for age group 45-59 years-old while for age-groups15-44 and 60-74 years old is a sign of low quality data for some follow-up intervals.     

Up-to-date estimates of long-term cancer survival in England and Wales

Cancer survival in England and Wales has improved over the last 30 years. However, cohort survival estimates delay recognition of these improvements. Here we show that period survival estimates, based on survival in a recent time period, suggest a more optimistic pattern for England and Wales than cohort-based measures for most cancers.British Journal of Cancer (2003) 89, 74-76. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6600976 www.bjcancer.com     

Comparison between Overall,Cause-specific,and Relative Survival Rates Based on Data from a Population-based Cancer Registry

Three kinds of survival rates are generally used depending on the purpose of the investigation: overall,cause-specific, and relative. The differences among these 3 survival rates are derived from their respectiveformulas; however, reports based on actual cancer registry data are few because of incomplete information andshort follow-up duration recorded on cancer registration. The aim of this study was to numerically and visuallycompare these 3 survival rates on the basis of data from the Nagasaki Prefecture Cancer Registry. Subjectswere patients diagnosed with cancer and registered in the registry between 1999 and 2003. We calculated theproportion of cause of death and 5-year survival rates. For lung, liver, or advanced stage cancers, the proportionsof cancer-related death were high and the differences in survival rates were small. For prostate or early stagecancers, the proportions of death from other causes were high and the differences in survival rates were large.We concluded that the differences among the 3 survival rates increased when the proportion of death from othercauses increased     

Long-term Survival Outcomes of ‘Low Risk’ Ductal Carcinoma in situ from a Territory-wide Cancer Registry

AimsThe LORIS trial is an ongoing phase III clinical trial on low risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). DCIS patients aged ≥46 years with screen-detected low/intermediate nuclear grade were considered low risk and were randomised into surveillance or standard surgery. Here we review the 10-year territory-wide breast cancer registry database and evaluate the clinical outcomes of low versus high risk DCIS patients.Materials and methodsThis was a retrospective study of a prospectively maintained territory-wide breast cancer registry in Hong Kong.ResultsBetween 1997 and 2006, 1391 DCIS patients were identified from the Hong Kong cancer registry breast cancer database. The mean age at diagnosis was 49.2 years (range 30–70). In total, 372 patients were classified as ‘low risk’, whereas the remaining 777 patients were classified as ‘high risk’. After a median follow-up of 11.6 years, the 10-year overall breast cancer-specific survival of the entire DCIS cohort was 1136/1149 (98.9%). Overall breast cancer-specific survival of low risk DCIS was 99.5%, whereas that in high risk DCIS was 98.6% (Log-rank test, P = 0.208).Forty-six (12.4%) patients in the LORIS low risk group did not receive surgery, whereas 93 (12%) patients in the LORIS high risk group did not receive surgery. The 10-year breast cancer-specific survival in the non-operated low risk DCIS group was 97.8%; that in the non-operated high risk DCIS group was 96.7% (P = 1).ConclusionLong-term survival of DCIS was excellent, especially in low risk DCIS, regardless of surgical treatment.     

Verification of the Correlation between Progression-free Survival and Overall Survival Considering Magnitudes of Survival Postprogression in the Treatment of Four Types of Cancer

Background: With development and application of new and effective anti-cancer drugs, the median survivalpost-progression (SPP) is often prolonged, and the role of the median SPP on surrogacy performance shouldbe considered. To evaluate the impact of the median SPP on the correlation between progression-free survival(PFS) and overall survival (OS), we performed simulations for treatment of four types of cancer, advancedgastric cancer (AGC), metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC), glioblastoma (GBM), and advanced non-small-celllung cancer (ANSCLC). Materials and Methods: The effects of the median SPP on the statistical propertiesof OS and the correlation between PFS and OS were assessed. Further, comparisons were made between thesurrogacy performance based on real data from meta-analyses and simulation results with similar scenarios.Results: The probability of a significant gain in OS and HR for OS was decreased by an increase of the SPP/OS ratio or by a decrease of observed treatment benefit for PFS. Similarly, for each of the four types of cancer,the correlation between PFS and OS was reduced as the median SPP increased from 2 to 12 months. Except forANSCLC, for which the median SPP was equal to the true value, the simulated correlation between PFS and OSwas consistent with the values derived from meta-analyses for the other three kinds of cancer. Further, for thesethree types of cancer, when the median SPP was controlled at a designated level (i.e., < 4 months for AGC, < 12months for MCC, and <6 months for GBM), the correlation between PFS and OS was strong; and the powerof OS reached 34.9% at the minimum. Conclusions: PFS is an acceptable surrogate endpoint for OS under thecondition of controlling SPPs for AGC, MCC, and GBM at their limit levels; a similar conclusion cannot bemade for ANSCLC.     

Conditional relative survival of cancer patients and conditional probability of death

BACKGROUND:

Little information is available on the conditional probabilities of death among patients who survive for >5 years after a diagnosis with cancer. The objective of this study was to estimate the conditional probabilities of death for breast cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, and lung cancer in France.

METHODS:

The study included data from the French Network of Cancer Registries from 205,562 patients aged <75 years who were diagnosed with cancer between 1989 and 1997. The conditional probabilities of death were calculated by using a relative survival regression model in which age was included as a covariate.

RESULTS:

After the first year and until 10 years after diagnosis, the annual probability of death decreased dramatically for colorectal cancer: It was the same in all age groups after 3 years, and it was approximately 1% at 10 years. For prostate cancer, the decrease was not as great, and the conditional probability of death remained higher among younger patients at >4% at 10 years. During the 3 years after diagnosis, the probability of death was greater for older patients with breast cancer; then, it decreased less for younger patients compared with older patients, leading to a greater conditional probability of death among younger patients at 4 years and up to 10 years. The annual probability of death in patients with lung cancer decreased for both sexes but remained substantially higher for men than for women, reaching approximately 8% and 5%, respectively, at 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS:

Further studies would facilitate a better understanding of the observed differences in relative survival within European countries. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.     

Estimating expected survival probabilities for relative survival analysis--exploring the impact of including cancer patient mortality in the calculations

Relative survival is a widely used measure of cancer patient survival, defined as the observed survival of the cancer patients divided by the expected survival of a comparable group from the general population, free from the cancer under study. In practise, expected survival is usually calculated from general population life tables. Such estimates are known to be biased since they also include mortality from the cancer patients, but the bias is ignored since mortality among individuals with a specific cancer is thought to constitute only a small proportion of total mortality. Using the computerised population registers that exist in Sweden we had the unique opportunity to calculate expected survival both including and excluding individuals with cancer, and thereby estimate the size of the bias arising from using general population estimates. We also evaluated a simple method to adjust expected survival probabilities estimated from general population statistics as an aid to researchers who do not have access to computerised registers of the entire national population. Our results show that the bias is sufficiently small to be ignorable for most applications, notably for cancers with high or low mortality and for younger age groups (<60 years). However, the bias in relative survival estimates can be greater than 1 percent unit for older age groups for common cancers and even larger for all sites combined. For example, the bias in 10-year relative survival for men aged 75+ diagnosed with prostate cancer was 2.6 percent units, which we think is of sufficient magnitude to warrant adjustment.     

Cancer net survival on registry data: Use of the new unbiased Pohar‐Perme estimator and magnitude of the bias with the classical methods

Net survival, the survival which might occur if cancer was the only cause of death, is a major epidemiological indicator required for international or temporal comparisons. Recent findings have shown that all classical methods used for routine estimation of net survival from cancer‐registry data, sometimes called “relative‐survival methods,” provide biased estimates. Meanwhile, an unbiased estimator, the Pohar‐Perme estimator (PPE), was recently proposed. Using real data, we investigated the magnitude of the errors made by four “relative‐survival” methods (Ederer I, Hakulinen, Ederer II and a univariable regression model) vs. PPE as reference and examined the influence of time of follow‐up, cancer prognosis, and age on the errors made. The data concerned seven cancer sites (2,51,316 cases) collected by FRANCIM cancer registries. Net survivals were estimated at 5, 10 and 15 years postdiagnosis. At 5 years, the errors were generally small. At 10 years, in good‐prognosis cancers, the errors made in nonstandardized estimates with all classical methods were generally great (+2.7 to +9% points in prostate cancer) and increased in age‐class estimations (vs. 5‐year ones). At 15 years, in bad‐ or average‐prognosis cancers, the errors were often substantial whatever the nature of the estimation. In good‐prognosis cancers, the errors in nonstandardized estimates of all classical methods were great and sometimes very important. With all classical methods, great errors occurred in age‐class estimates resulting in errors in age‐standardized estimates (+0.4 to +3.2% points in breast cancer). In estimating net survival, cancer registries should abandon all classical methods and adopt the new Pohar‐Perme estimator.     

Outcomes of HTLV-1 Carriers with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Single-Center Retrospective Matched Cohort Study

BackgroundThe human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1) is associated with aggressive diseases, such as adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATLL). However, less is known on the impact of HTLV-1 infection in non-ATLL hematologic malignancies. We aimed to investigate if HTLV-1 carriers with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have worse survival outcomes than non-HTLV-1 carriers.Materials and MethodsWe performed a single-center retrospective cohort study by matching HTLV-1 carriers to non-carriers based on age, sex, Ann Arbor stage, and year of diagnosis. Our outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate OS and PFS between carriers and non-carriers. We fitted multivariate Cox regression models to assess the mortality and recurrence/disease progression risk of HTLV-1 infection.ResultsA total of 188 patients, 66 with HTLV-1 infection and 122 without HTLV-1, were included in the study. HTLV-1 carriers had higher extranodal involvement than non-carriers (47% vs. 27%, P = .010). With a median follow-up of 78 months (95% CI: 41-90 months), HTLV-1 carriers had a similar 5 year OS (41% vs. 42%, P = .940) and PFS (34% vs. 32%, P = .691) compared to non-carriers. In the multivariate Cox analysis, HTLV-1 infection was not associated with worse OS (aHR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.64-1.50) or PFS (aHR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.60-1.34).ConclusionHTLV-1 carriers with DLBCL did not have worse survival outcomes compared to non-carriers. Our results suggest that clinicians should follow standard guidelines for DLBCL management on HTLV-1 seropositive patients.     

Obesity and survival among women with ovarian cancer: results from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium

Background:

Observational studies have reported a modest association between obesity and risk of ovarian cancer; however, whether it is also associated with survival and whether this association varies for the different histologic subtypes are not clear. We undertook an international collaborative analysis to assess the association between body mass index (BMI), assessed shortly before diagnosis, progression-free survival (PFS), ovarian cancer-specific survival and overall survival (OS) among women with invasive ovarian cancer.

Methods:

We used original data from 21 studies, which included 12 390 women with ovarian carcinoma. We combined study-specific adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) using random-effects models to estimate pooled HRs (pHR). We further explored associations by histologic subtype.

Results:

Overall, 6715 (54%) deaths occurred during follow-up. A significant OS disadvantage was observed for women who were obese (BMI: 30–34.9, pHR: 1.10 (95% confidence intervals (CIs): 0.99–1.23); BMI: ⩾35, pHR: 1.12 (95% CI: 1.01–1.25)). Results were similar for PFS and ovarian cancer-specific survival. In analyses stratified by histologic subtype, associations were strongest for women with low-grade serous (pHR: 1.12 per 5 kg m⁻²) and endometrioid subtypes (pHR: 1.08 per 5 kg m⁻²), and more modest for the high-grade serous (pHR: 1.04 per 5 kg m⁻²) subtype, but only the association with high-grade serous cancers was significant.

Conclusions:

Higher BMI is associated with adverse survival among the majority of women with ovarian cancer.