2020
DOI: 10.1016/s2213-8587(20)30163-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Long-term mortality after childhood growth hormone treatment: the SAGhE cohort study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
63
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 71 publications
(67 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
1
63
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Several other studies reporting on tumor recurrence or secondary tumors have been published, mostly in agreement with the result by Thomas-Teinturier et al, although there also have been some reports of increased risk for certain cancer types or with a trend toward increased risk of mortality (4,5,9,10). The studies reporting an increased risk of secondary cancer or mortality, must be interpreted precociously for three reasons; first, in most studies, due to the relatively small number of events, high confidence intervals and subsequent low levels of significance are present; secondly in many studies, the used control groups resulted in a high risk of outcome bias due to the fact that patients surviving childhood cancer receiving GH treatment already were at increased risk for mortality or a secondary neoplasms due to their history with more toxic therapies such as high dose chemotherapy, stem cell transplantation or radiotherapy.…”
Section: Comparing the Results With Other Published Studiessupporting
confidence: 84%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Several other studies reporting on tumor recurrence or secondary tumors have been published, mostly in agreement with the result by Thomas-Teinturier et al, although there also have been some reports of increased risk for certain cancer types or with a trend toward increased risk of mortality (4,5,9,10). The studies reporting an increased risk of secondary cancer or mortality, must be interpreted precociously for three reasons; first, in most studies, due to the relatively small number of events, high confidence intervals and subsequent low levels of significance are present; secondly in many studies, the used control groups resulted in a high risk of outcome bias due to the fact that patients surviving childhood cancer receiving GH treatment already were at increased risk for mortality or a secondary neoplasms due to their history with more toxic therapies such as high dose chemotherapy, stem cell transplantation or radiotherapy.…”
Section: Comparing the Results With Other Published Studiessupporting
confidence: 84%
“…The studies reporting an increased risk of secondary cancer or mortality, must be interpreted precociously for three reasons; first, in most studies, due to the relatively small number of events, high confidence intervals and subsequent low levels of significance are present; secondly in many studies, the used control groups resulted in a high risk of outcome bias due to the fact that patients surviving childhood cancer receiving GH treatment already were at increased risk for mortality or a secondary neoplasms due to their history with more toxic therapies such as high dose chemotherapy, stem cell transplantation or radiotherapy. The increased cause-specific mortality of the children with cancer reported in the recent SAGhe study (4), was also interpreted to be associated with the underlying diagnosis. Favorably, future studies should be performed in a homogenous cancer survivor group, with the same tumor type and toxicity all with GHD, with and without GH treatment.…”
Section: Comparing the Results With Other Published Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations