Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Variations in Treatment of Cervical Cancer According to Tumor Morphology-Population-Based Cohort Analysis of English National Cancer Registration Data. | LitMetric
*National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, Public Health England; †University of Sheffield, Mathematics and Statistics Help, Sheffield; ‡East Kent Gynaecological Centre, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother Hospital, Margate; and §Department of Cellular Pathology, Birmingham Women's NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Published: January 2017
AI Article Synopsis
Article Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to investigate differences in the treatment of cervical cancer by tumor morphology after accounting for demographic, diagnostic, and tumor factors.
Methods: Retrospective population-based observational study using linked cancer registration and treatment data from administrative data sources of women diagnosed with cervical cancer (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition C53, malignant behavior) during 2009 and 2010 in England. Descriptive analyses and multinomial regression modeling have been used to consider differences in treatment by morphological subtype. For each morphological subtype, number and percentage of cases are presented by demographic, diagnostic, and tumor factors and treatment modality. Relative risk ratios are provided for each treatment modality by morphological subtype and other specified factors.
Results: Forty-three percent of women were treated surgically; 36% by clinical oncology and only 8% by combination of surgery and clinical oncology. Compared with squamous cell carcinomas, both adenocarcinomas and adenosquamous carcinomas were more likely to be treated by trachelectomy, hysterectomy, radiotherapy with hysterectomy, or chemoradiotherapy with hysterectomy than by chemoradiotherapy without hysterectomy. These differences were explained mainly by a different stage distribution, but some difference remained after adjustment for other factors including stage. As clinically recommended, neuroendocrine tumors were not treated surgically. Further treatment differences were found by age, route to diagnosis, stage, and grade. Deprivation was not generally associated with treatment differences, with 1 exception that those from more deprived areas were less likely to be treated by trachelectomy.
Conclusions: Important treatment differences according to tumor morphology remain after adjusting for relevant patient demographic, diagnostic, and tumor factors. In particular, the difference between the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma is notable.
