Population-based evaluations of the incidence of metastatic colorectal cancer at diagnosis among different age groups are lacking. Therefore, we investigated the effects of age at diagnosis on metastatic colorectal cancer and patients’ prognoses. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was used to identify patients diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer. Multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with poor survival. The Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to estimate survival differences between the subgroups. We identified 30,333 adult patients diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer between 2010 and 2014. The younger and middle-aged groups had better survival than the older group when brain metastasis was not involved. The liver was the most common site of metastasis followed by the liver and lung combined. Age at diagnosis was an independent factor in patients’ survival. Survival differences between two and three-sites of metastases were found in the middle-aged and older groups but not in the younger group. No survival differences between three and four sites of metastases were found in any of the age groups. Therefore, the incidence and prognosis of metastatic sites for metastatic colorectal cancer varied by age group.
BackgroundThe appropriate treatment strategy for T1N0M0 lung large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) was not well illustrated. We evaluated the efficacy of different surgery types and adjuvant therapy on patients with T1N0M0 LCNEC.MethodsPatients diagnosed T1N0M0 LCNEC from 2004 to 2016 were identified in the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database. Clinical characteristics, treatment and survival data were collected. The efficacy of surgery type and adjuvant therapy stratified by tumor size was assessed. Overall survival(OS) was evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and relevant survival variables were identified by the Cox proportional hazard model.ResultsFrom 2004 to 2016, 425 patients were included in this study, 253 (59.5%) patients received lobectomy, and 236 (55.5%) patients had 4 or more lymph nodes removed. Patients received lobectomy had better survival than those received sublobar resection(P=0.000). No matter tumor size less than 2 cm or 2 to 3 cm, lobectomy was significantly prolonged survival. Compared with no lymph nodes removed, lymph nodes dissection was associated with more remarkable OS(P<0.000). 4 or more regional lymph nodes dissection predicted better OS compared with 1 to 3 regional lymph nodes dissection(P=0.014). After surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy did not contribute to extended survival in patients with tumor less than 2 cm(P=0.658), and possibly for tumor 2 to 3 cm(P=0.082). Multivariate analysis showed that age and lobectomy were independent prognostic factors(P=0.000).ConclusionOur results suggest that lobectomy and lymph nodes dissection were associated with significantly better survival. Extensive regional lymph node dissection(4 or more) was more effective in prolonging survival than 1 to 3 lymph nodes dissection. Adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with extended survival for tumor less than 2 cm, and possibly for tumor 2 to 3 cm.
Highlights
We conducted a head-to-head comparison between patients given RT with or without concurrent chemotherapy through PSM.
The study population we selected had stage II NPC with undetectable pre-EBV DNA, potentially reducing heterogeneity of tumors.
Our results showed that IMRT alone appeared to achieve comparable survival to CCRT for stage II NPC and undetectable pretreatment EBV DNA.
Our findings may provide references for optimizing individualized treatment among patients with stage II NPC.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.