ArticleCureus2020
Disparities in Ocular and Periocular Cancer Outcomes: Assessing Survival in Patients of Hispanic Origin.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A nationwide cancer database was used to perform a retrospective cohort study to compare the overall survival and cause-specific survival in patients with ocular and periocular cancer from varying Hispanic origins. A total of 19,831 cases from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries between 1973 and 2015 were obtained for analysis. All-cause and cause-specific mortality risk, with adjustment for age group, sex, race, tumor site, tumor histology, grade, summary stage, laterality, surgery status, radiotherapy status, and chemotherapy status, was examined using Cox proportional hazard models. Of the patients included 19,194 patients were non-Spanish-Hispanic-Latino, and 637 patients were Spanish-Hispanic Latino. The Spanish-Hispanic-Latino population was further subdivided as 398 of Mexican origin, 44 of Puerto Rican origin, 135 of South or Central American (excluding Brazil) origin, and 60 of other Spanish/Hispanic origin (including Europe origin). The mean (+/-SD) follow-up period was 98.57 (+/-93.23) months. In adjusted Cox regression, patients of Spanish-Hispanic-Latino origin demonstrated increased all-cause (HR, 1.173; 95% CI 1.022-1.347; P = 0.023) and cancer-specific mortality (HR, 1.328; 95% CI 1.099-1.604; P = 0.003) as compared to their non-Spanish-Hispanic-Latino counterparts. Upon subclassification by Hispanic origin, patients of Mexican origin had significantly increased all-cause (HR, 1.229; 95% CI 1.032-1.464; P = 0.021) and cancer-specific mortality (HR, 1.516; 95% CI 1.204-1.909; P < .001) and patients with other Hispanic/Spanish origin, including Europe, had significantly increased all-cause (HR, 1.627; 95% CI 1.16-2.28; P =0.005), but not cancer-specific (HR, 1.243; 95% CI 0.734-2.104; P = 0.418) mortality. Patients of Puerto Rican origin and South or Central American (excluding Brazil) origin had no significant difference in all-cause or cancer-specific mortality compared to those of non-Spanish-Hispanic-Latino origin. Mortality risk from ocular and periocular cancers varies extensively by specific Hispanic origin. A greater understanding of these disparities is essential to identify vulnerable populations and provide adequate treatment to optimize long-term outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.