Differences in cancer amputee survival based on marital status: an analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database

Ayaz, Talha; Fredrickson, Saul; O'Mary, Kevin; Panchbhavi, Megna; Panchbhavi, Vinod K.

doi:10.1080/07347332.2021.1887429

Cited by 2 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All but two 50,51 reported that married patients had higher overall survival rates than single patients. The association was found in studies on patients with cervical, 52 esophageal, 53 uveal melanoma, 54 laryngeal cancer, 55 soft tissue sarcoma 56 and in one study with various cancer types 25 . The meta‐analysis showed that the hazard ratio was 1.19 with a confidence interval of 1.12–1.27 ( p < 0.005) and an NNT value of 14 (Figure 3A).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Twenty‐two studies compared cancer specific survival in unmarried and married cancer patients, of which all but two 22,38 reported that married patients had a higher cancer‐specific survival rate than unmarried patients. The association was found in five studies on patients with breast cancer, 21,32,33,39,40 two studies on patients with prostate cancer 26,27 ; and one study each in patients with testicular, 30 head and neck, 41 gastric, 42 kidney, 34 colon, 43 oral cavity, 44 non‐metastatic urothelial bladder cancer, 45 non‐small cell lung cancer, 46 melanoma, 47 medullary thyroid, 37 colorectal 48 and liver cancer, 49 and in one study with various cancer types 25 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Sixteen articles reported a sub‐category which compared the overall survival of unmarried patients to married ones, of which all but one 22 reported significant difference between them. The association was found in three studies on patients with mixed types of cancer, 23–25 two studies on patients with prostate cancer 26,27 ; and one study each in patients with bladder, 28 head and neck, 29 testicular, 30 pancreatic, 31 breast, 32,33 kidney, 34 esophageal, 35 gastric 36 and medullary thyroid cancer 37 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…unmarried and married patients 3.4.1 | Overall survival Sixteen articles reported a sub-category which compared the overall survival of unmarried patients to married ones, of which all but one 22 reported significant difference between them. The association was found in three studies on patients with mixed types of cancer, [23][24][25] two studies on patients with prostate cancer 26,27 ; and one study each in patients with bladder, 28 head and neck, 29 testicular, 30 pancreatic, 31 breast, 32,33 kidney, 34 esophageal, 35 gastric 36 and medullary thyroid cancer. 37 The meta-analysis showed that the total hazard ratio for unmarried versus married patients was 1.32 with a confidence interval of 1.24-1.40 (p < 0.001) and an NNT value of 7 (see Figure 2A).…”

Section: Analysis Of the Comparison Betweenmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…The association was found in five studies on patients with breast cancer, 21,32,33,39,40 two studies on patients with prostate cancer 26,27 ; and one study each in patients with testicular, 30 head and neck, 41 gastric, 42 kidney, 34 colon, 43 oral cavity, 44 non-metastatic urothelial bladder cancer, 45 non-small cell lung cancer, 46 melanoma, 47 medullary thyroid, 37 colorectal 48 and liver cancer, 49 and in one study with various cancer types. 25 The meta-analysis showed that the total hazard ratio for unmarried versus married patients was 1.30, with a confidence interval of 1.22-1.40 (p < 0.001) and an NNT value of 8 (see Figure 2C). Due to the high heterogeneity in the results (I 2 = 95%), the studies were categorized according to gender (see Figure 2D,E).…”

Section: Analysis Of the Comparison Betweenmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Marital status and survival in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In recent years, authors have repeatedly reported on the significance of social support in cancer survival. Although overall the studies appear to be convincing, little is known about which types of social support promote better survival rates, and which subgroups of cancer patients are more susceptible to the benefits of it. The aim of this study was to identify, organize, and examine studies reporting on the significance of social support in cancer survival. Methods:The PubMed, CINAHL and EBSCO databases were searched using the keywords social support/marital status, cancer, and survival/mortality. Where possible we used a meta-analytical approach, specifically a random effect model, in order to combine the results of the hazard ratios in studies from which this information could be obtained. When interpreting clinical relevance, we used the number needed to treat (NNT).Results: Better survival was observed in married patients when compared to unmarried (single, never-married, divorced/separated, and widowed) in overall and cancer-specific survival. Gender group differences showed that the association was statistically significant only in cancer-specific survival when comparing divorced/separated male and female cancer patients (p < 0.001), thus confirming results from the previous meta-analysis. Conclusions: Being unmarried is associated with significantly worse overall and cancer-specific survival. The most vulnerable group found in our study were divorced/separated men. The results of this review can motivate physicians, oncologists, and other healthcare professionals to be aware of the importance of patients' social support, especially in the identified sub-group.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Analysis Of the Comparison Betweenmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Analysis Of the Comparison Betweenmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Marital status and survival in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Healthcare Utilization Following Hemipelvectomy or Hip Disarticulation in the Military Health System

Wido,

Harrington,

Schulz

et al. 2023

Military Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Amputations at the hip and pelvic level are often performed secondary to high-energy trauma or pelvic neoplasms and are frequently associated with a prolonged postoperative rehabilitation course that involves a multitude of health care providers. The purpose of this study was to examine the health care utilization of patients with hip- and pelvic-level amputations that received care in the U.S. Military Health System. Materials and Methods We performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent a hip- or pelvic-level amputation in the Military Health System between 2001 and 2017. We compiled and reviewed all inpatient and outpatient encounters during three time points: (1) 3 months pre-amputation to 1 day pre-amputation, (2) the day of amputation through 12 months post-amputation, and (3) 13-24 months post-amputation. Health care utilization was defined as the average number of encounter days/admissions for each patient. Concomitant diagnoses following amputation including post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, anxiety, depression, and chronic pain were also recorded. Results A total of 106 individuals with hip- and pelvic-level amputations were analyzed (69 unilateral hip disarticulation, 6 bilateral hip disarticulations, 27 unilateral hemipelvectomy, 2 bilateral hemipelvectomies, and 2 patients with a hemipelvectomy and contralateral hip disarticulation). Combat trauma contributed to 61.3% (n = 65) of all amputations. During the time period of 3 months pre-amputation, patients had an average of 3.8 encounter days. Following amputation, health care utilization increased in both the year following amputation and the time period of 13-24 months post-amputation, averaging 170.8 and 77.4 encounter days, respectively. Patients with trauma-related amputations averaged more total encounter days compared to patients with disease-related amputations in the time period of 12 months following amputation (203.8 vs.106.7, P < .001) and the time period of 13-24 months post-amputation (92.0 vs. 49.0, P = .005). PTSD (P = .02) and traumatic brain injuries (P < .001) were more common following combat-related amputations. Conclusions This study highlights the increased health care resource demand following hip- and pelvic-level amputations in a military population, particularly for those patients who sustained combat-related trauma. Additionally, patients with combat-related amputations had significantly higher rates of concomitant PTSD and traumatic brain injury. Understanding the extensive needs of this unique patient population helps inform providers and policymakers on the requirements for providing high-quality care to combat casualties.

show abstract

Differences in cancer amputee survival based on marital status: an analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database

Cited by 2 publications

References 17 publications

Marital status and survival in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Marital status and survival in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Healthcare Utilization Following Hemipelvectomy or Hip Disarticulation in the Military Health System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About