Search tips
Search criteria

Results 1-3 (3)

Clipboard (0)

Select a Filter Below

more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Marital status and survival after oesophageal cancer surgery: a population-based nationwide cohort study in Sweden 
BMJ Open  2014;4(6):e005418.
A beneficial effect of being married on survival has been shown for several cancer types, but is unclear for oesophageal cancer. The objective of this study was to clarify the potential influence of the marital status on the overall and disease-specific survival after curatively intended treatment of oesophageal cancer using a nationwide population-based design, taking into account the known major prognostic variables.
Prospective, population-based cohort.
All Swedish hospitals performing surgery for oesophageal cancer during 2001–2005.
This study included 90% of all patients with oesophageal or junctional cancer who underwent surgical resection in Sweden in 2001–2005, with follow-up until death or the end of the study period (2012).
Primary and secondary outcome measures
Cox regression was used to estimate associations between the marital status and the 5-year overall and disease-specific mortality, expressed as HRs with 95% CIs, with adjustment for sex, age, tumour stage, histological type, complications, comorbidities and annual surgeon volume.
Of all 606 included patients (80.4% men), 55.1% were married, 9.2% were remarried, 22.6% were previously married and 13% were never married. Compared with the married patients, the never married (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.35), previously married (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.15) and remarried patients (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13) had no increased overall 5-year mortality. The corresponding HRs for disease-specific survival, and after excluding the initial 90 days of surgery, were similar to the HRs for the overall survival.
This study showed no evidence of a better 5-year survival in married patients compared with non-married patients undergoing surgery for oesophageal cancer.
PMCID: PMC4054621  PMID: 24907248
Oesophageal Cancer; Marital Status; Survival
2.  Education level and survival after oesophageal cancer surgery: a prospective population-based cohort study 
BMJ Open  2013;3(12):e003754.
This study aimed to investigate whether a higher education level is associated with an improved long-term survival after oesophagectomy for cancer.
A prospective, population-based cohort study.
90% of all patients with oesophageal and cardia cancer who underwent a resection in Sweden in 2001–2005 were enrolled in this study (N=600; 80.3% male) and followed up until death or the end of the study period (2012). The study exposure was level of education, defined as compulsory (≤9 years), moderate (10–12 years) or high (≥13 years).
Outcome measures
The main outcome measure was overall 5-year survival after oesophagectomy. Cox regression was used to estimate the associations between education level and mortality, expressed as HRs with 95% CIs, with adjustment for sex, age, tumour stage, histological type, complications, comorbidities and annual surgeon volume. The patient group with highest education was used as the reference category.
Among the 600 included patients, 281 (46.8%) had compulsory education, 238 (39.7%) had moderate education and 81 (13.5%) had high education. The overall 5-year survival rate was 23.1%, 24.4% and 32.1% among patients with compulsory, moderate and high education, respectively. After adjustment for confounders, a slightly higher, yet not statistically significantly increased point HR was found among the compulsory educated patients (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.47). In patients with tumour stage IV, increased adjusted HRs were found for compulsory (HR 2.88, 95% CI 1.07 to 7.73) and moderately (HR 2.83, 95% CI 1.15 to 6.95) educated patients. No statistically significant associations were found for the other tumour stages.
This study provides limited evidence of an association between lower education and worse long-term survival after oesophagectomy for cancer.
PMCID: PMC3855588  PMID: 24302504
3.  Clinical Use of HIV Integrase Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 
PLoS ONE  2013;8(1):e52562.
Optimal regimen choice of antiretroviral therapy is essential to achieve long-term clinical success. Integrase inhibitors have swiftly been adopted as part of current antiretroviral regimens. The purpose of this study was to review the evidence for integrase inhibitor use in clinical settings.
MEDLINE and Web-of-Science were screened from April 2006 until November 2012, as were hand-searched scientific meeting proceedings. Multiple reviewers independently screened 1323 citations in duplicate to identify randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials and cohort studies on integrase inhibitor use in clinical practice. Independent, duplicate data extraction and quality assessment were conducted.
48 unique studies were included on the use of integrase inhibitors in antiretroviral therapy-naive patients and treatment-experienced patients with either virological failure or switching to integrase inhibitors while virologically suppressed. On the selected studies with comparable outcome measures and indication (n = 16), a meta-analysis was performed based on modified intention-to-treat (mITT), on-treatment (OT) and as-treated (AT) virological outcome data. In therapy-naive patients, favorable odds ratios (OR) for integrase inhibitor-based regimens were observed, (mITT OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59–0.86). However, integrase inhibitors combined with protease inhibitors only did not result in a significant better virological outcome. Evidence further supported integrase inhibitor use following virological failure (mITT OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.11–0.66), but switching to integrase inhibitors from a high genetic barrier drug during successful treatment was not supported (mITT OR 1.43; 95% CI 0.89–2.31). Integrase inhibitor-based regimens result in similar immunological responses compared to other regimens. A low genetic barrier to drug-resistance development was observed for raltegravir and elvitegravir, but not for dolutegravir.
In first-line therapy, integrase inhibitors are superior to other regimens. Integrase inhibitor use after virological failure is supported as well by the meta-analysis. Careful use is however warranted when replacing a high genetic barrier drug in treatment-experienced patients switching successful treatment.
PMCID: PMC3541389  PMID: 23341902

Results 1-3 (3)