13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2019

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The number of cancer survivors continues to increase in the United States because of the growth and aging of the population as well as advances in early detection and treatment. To assist the public health community in better serving these individuals, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute collaborate every 3 years to estimate cancer prevalence in the United States using incidence and survival data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries; vital statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics; and population projections from the US Census Bureau. Current treatment patterns based on information in the National Cancer Data Base are presented for the most prevalent cancer types. Cancer-related and treatment-related short-term, long-term, and late health effects are also briefly described. More than 16.9 million Americans (8.1 million males and 8.8 million females) with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2019; this number is projected to reach more than 22.1 million by January 1, 2030 based on the growth and aging of the population alone. The 3 most prevalent cancers in 2019 are prostate (3,650,030), colon and rectum (776,120), and melanoma of the skin (684,470) among males, and breast (3,861,520), uterine corpus (807,860), and colon and rectum (768,650) among females. More than one-half (56%) of survivors were diagnosed within the past 10 years, and almost two-thirds (64%) are aged 65 years or older. People with a history of cancer have unique medical and psychosocial needs that require proactive assessment and management by follow-up care providers. Although there are growing numbers of tools that can assist patients, caregivers, and clinicians in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship, further evidence-based resources are needed to optimize care.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 100

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia.

          Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia occurs in both children and adults but its incidence peaks between 2 and 5 years of age. Causation is multifactorial and exogenous or endogenous exposures, genetic susceptibility, and chance have roles. Survival in paediatric acute lymphoblastic leukaemia has improved to roughly 90% in trials with risk stratification by biological features of leukaemic cells and response to treatment, treatment modification based on patients' pharmacodynamics and pharmacogenomics, and improved supportive care. However, innovative approaches are needed to further improve survival while reducing adverse effects. Prognosis remains poor in infants and adults. Genome-wide profiling of germline and leukaemic cell DNA has identified novel submicroscopic structural genetic changes and sequence mutations that contribute to leukaemogenesis, define new disease subtypes, affect responsiveness to treatment, and might provide novel prognostic markers and therapeutic targets for personalised medicine. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prevention and Monitoring of Cardiac Dysfunction in Survivors of Adult Cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline.

            Purpose Cardiac dysfunction is a serious adverse effect of certain cancer-directed therapies that can interfere with the efficacy of treatment, decrease quality of life, or impact the actual survival of the patient with cancer. The purpose of this effort was to develop recommendations for prevention and monitoring of cardiac dysfunction in survivors of adult-onset cancers. Methods Recommendations were developed by an expert panel with multidisciplinary representation using a systematic review (1996 to 2016) of meta-analyses, randomized clinical trials, observational studies, and clinical experience. Study quality was assessed using established methods, per study design. The guideline recommendations were crafted in part using the Guidelines Into Decision Support methodology. Results A total of 104 studies met eligibility criteria and compose the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. The strength of the recommendations in these guidelines is based on the quality, amount, and consistency of the evidence and the balance between benefits and harms. Recommendations It is important for health care providers to initiate the discussion regarding the potential for cardiac dysfunction in individuals in whom the risk is sufficiently high before beginning therapy. Certain higher risk populations of survivors of cancer may benefit from prevention and screening strategies implemented during cancer-directed therapies. Clinical suspicion for cardiac disease should be high and threshold for cardiac evaluation should be low in any survivor who has received potentially cardiotoxic therapy. For certain higher risk survivors of cancer, routine surveillance with cardiac imaging may be warranted after completion of cancer-directed therapy, so that appropriate interventions can be initiated to halt or even reverse the progression of cardiac dysfunction.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A paradigm shift in U.S. Breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates.

              Despite its benefits in body image, self-esteem, sexuality, and quality of life, historically fewer than 25 percent of patients undergo immediate breast reconstruction. After passage of the Women Health and Cancer Rights Act, studies failed to demonstrate changes in reconstructive rates. A recent single-year report suggests significant shifts in U.S. breast reconstruction patterns. The authors' goal was to assess long-term trends in rates and types of immediate reconstruction. A serial cross-sectional study of immediate breast reconstruction trends was performed using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 1998 to 2008. Data on mastectomies, reconstructive method (autologous/implant), and sociodemographic/hospital predictors were obtained. Immediate breast reconstruction rates increased on average 5 percent per year, from 20.8 percent to 37.8 percent (p < 0.01). Autologous reconstruction rates were unchanged. Implant use increased by an average of 11 percent per year (p < 0.01), surpassing autologous methods as the leading reconstructive modality after 2002. The strongest predictors of implant use were procedures performed after 2002, bilateral mastectomies, patients operated on in Midwest/West regions, and Medicare recipients. In contrast to bilateral mastectomies, which increased by 17 percent per year (p < 0.01), unilateral mastectomies decreased by 2 percent per year (p < 0.01). Bilateral mastectomy defects had significantly higher reconstruction rates than unilateral counterparts (p < 0.01). The significant rise in immediate reconstruction rates in the United States correlates closely to a 203 percent expansion in implant use. Although the reason for the increase in implant use is multifactorial, changes in mastectomy patterns, such as increased use of bilateral mastectomies, are one important contributor.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians
                CA A Cancer J Clin
                Wiley
                0007-9235
                1542-4863
                June 11 2019
                June 11 2019
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Surveillance Research American Cancer Society Atlanta Georgia
                [2 ]Health Services Research American Cancer Society Atlanta Georgia
                [3 ]Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences National Cancer Institute Bethesda Maryland
                [4 ]Smith Center for Healing and the Arts Washington DC
                [5 ]Survivorship American Cancer Society Atlanta Georgia
                [6 ]Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology Emory University Atlanta Georgia
                Article
                10.3322/caac.21565
                31184787
                © 2019

                Comments

                Comment on this article