ArticleCancer medicine2023
Trends and age, sex, and race disparities in time to second primary cancer from 1990 to 2019.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deciphering the Risk of Developing Lung Cancer after the Diagnosis of Gastric Cancer with Genetic Evidence: A European and East Asian Populations-Based Mendelian Randomization Analysis.Cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Socio-economic inequalities in second primary cancer incidence: A competing risks analysis of women with breast cancer in England between 2000 and 2018.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Risk of second primary cancer in young breast cancer survivors: an important yet overlooked issue.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025Review
- Risk-based screening and prognostic analysis for second primary malignancies in kidney cancer patients: a retrospective cohort study based on large-scale population and Mendelian randomization analysis.International journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Trends and age, sex, and race disparities in time to second primary cancer from 1990 to 2019.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite the growth in primary cancer (PC) survivors, the trends and disparities in this population have yet to be comprehensively examined using competing risk analysis. The objective is to examine trends in time to second primary cancer (SPC) and to characterize age, sex, and racial disparities in time-to-SPC.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted based on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER). Two datasets for this study are (1) the discovery dataset with patients from SEER-8 (1990-2019) and (2) the validation dataset with patients from SEER-17 (2000-2019), excluding those in the discovery dataset. Patients were survivors of lung, colorectal, breast (female only), and prostate PCs.
resultsThe 5-year SPC cumulative incidences of lung PC increased from 1990 to 2019, with the cumulative incidence ratio being 1.73 (95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.64-1.82; p < 0.001). Age disparities among all PCs remained from 2010 to 2019, and the adjusted HRs (aHRs) of all PCs were above 1.43 when those below 65 were compared with those 65 and above. Sex disparity exists among colorectal and lung PC survivors. Racial disparities existed among non-Hispanic (NH) Black breast PC survivors (aHR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.07-1.17; p < 0.001). The types of SPC vary according to PC and sex.
conclusionsOver the past three decades, there has been a noticeably shortened time-to-SPC among lung PC survivors. This is likely attributed to the reduced number of lung cancer deaths due to advancements in effective treatments. However, disparities in age, sex, and race still exist, indicating that further effort is needed to close the gap.
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.