IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v14y2017i12p1500-d120462.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Cervical Cancer Patients Diagnosed with Opportunistic Screening Live Longer? An Arkhangelsk Cancer Registry Study

Author

Listed:
  • Elena E. Roik

    (Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT—The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø N-9037, Norway
    International School of Public Health, Northern State Medical University, Arkhangelsk 163000, Russia)

  • Evert Nieboer

    (Department of Biochemistry and Biomedical Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L4, Canada)

  • Olga A. Kharkova

    (Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT—The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø N-9037, Norway
    International School of Public Health, Northern State Medical University, Arkhangelsk 163000, Russia)

  • Andrej M. Grjibovski

    (International School of Public Health, Northern State Medical University, Arkhangelsk 163000, Russia
    Department of Preventive Medicine, International Kazakh -Turkish University, Turkestan 050040, Kazakhstan)

  • Vitaly A. Postoev

    (International School of Public Health, Northern State Medical University, Arkhangelsk 163000, Russia)

  • Jon Ø. Odland

    (Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT—The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø N-9037, Norway)

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to compare cervical cancer (СС) patients diagnosed with and without screening in terms of: (i) sociodemographic and clinical characteristics; (ii) factors associated with survival; and (iii), and levels of risk. A registry-based study was conducted using data from the Arkhangelsk Cancer Registry. It included women with newly diagnosed malignant neoplasm of the uterine cervix during the period of 1 January 2005 to 11 November 2016 (N = 1548). The Kaplan-Meier method, the log-rank test, and Cox regression were applied. Most participants who were diagnosed by screening were at stage I and died less frequently from CC than those diagnosed without screening. The latter group was also diagnosed with СС at a younger age and died younger. Younger individuals and urban residents diagnosed with stage I and II, squamous cell carcinoma had longer survival times. Cox regression modeling indicated that the hazard ratio for death among women with CC diagnosed without screening was 1.61 (unadjusted) and 1.37 (adjusted). CC diagnosed by screening, cancer stage, patient residence, histological tumor type, and age at diagnosis were independent prognostic variables of longer survival time with CC. Diagnosis of CC made within a screening program improved survival.

Suggested Citation

  • Elena E. Roik & Evert Nieboer & Olga A. Kharkova & Andrej M. Grjibovski & Vitaly A. Postoev & Jon Ø. Odland, 2017. "Do Cervical Cancer Patients Diagnosed with Opportunistic Screening Live Longer? An Arkhangelsk Cancer Registry Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-13, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:12:p:1500-:d:120462
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/12/1500/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/12/1500/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shugarman, L.R. & Sorbero, M.E.S. & Tian, H. & Jain, A.K. & Ashwood, J.S., 2008. "An exploration of urban and rural differences in lung cancer survival among medicare beneficiaries," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 98(7), pages 1280-1287.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lusine Yaghjyan & Christopher R. Cogle & Guangran Deng & Jue Yang & Pauline Jackson & Nancy Hardt & Jaclyn Hall & Liang Mao, 2019. "Continuous Rural-Urban Coding for Cancer Disparity Studies: Is It Appropriate for Statistical Analysis?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-14, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:12:p:1500-:d:120462. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.