Prognostic analysis and treatment utilization of different treatment strategies in elderly esophageal cancer patients with distant metastases: a SEER database analysis

Purpose The purpose of this study was to explore which therapeutic strategy is more beneficial for elderly esophageal cancer (EC) patients with distant metastasis, the treatment utilization status and the screening of factors related to prognosis, so as to better guide the treatment of these patient...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology 2023-11, Vol.149 (17), p.15413-15423
Hauptverfasser: Han, Lian-Qiang, Cui, Ting-Ting, Xiao, Nian-Jun, Li, Wen
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose The purpose of this study was to explore which therapeutic strategy is more beneficial for elderly esophageal cancer (EC) patients with distant metastasis, the treatment utilization status and the screening of factors related to prognosis, so as to better guide the treatment of these patients. Methods Patients in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database were divided into chemoradiotherapy (Group A), chemotherapy (Group B), radiotherapy (Group C), and no treatment (Group D) according to different treatment methods. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to adjust for baseline differences between the two groups. Overall survival (OS) and esophageal cancer-specific survival (ECSS) was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results A total of 7027 patients were included in this study, 5739 males (81.7%) and 1288 females (18.3%) with the median age was 70 (60–98). In the original cohort, the number of patients in the four groups was 2260 (Group A), 2087 (Group B), 945 (Group C) and 1735 (Group D), respectively. After PSM, there was no significant difference in mean OS (A vs B, 13.5 months VS 13.4 months, P = 0.511) and mean ECSS (A vs B, 15.6 vs 15.5 months, P = 0.374), while both OS (B vs C, 7 vs 3 months, P 
ISSN:0171-5216
1432-1335
1432-1335
DOI:10.1007/s00432-023-05260-6