IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0126796.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Survival Analysis of Patients with Interval Cancer Undergoing Gastric Cancer Screening by Endoscopy

Author

Listed:
  • Chisato Hamashima
  • Michiko Shabana
  • Mikizo Okamoto
  • Yoneatsu Osaki
  • Takuji Kishimoto

Abstract

Aims: Interval cancer is a key factor that influences the effectiveness of a cancer screening program. To evaluate the impact of interval cancer on the effectiveness of endoscopic screening, the survival rates of patients with interval cancer were analyzed. Methods: We performed gastric cancer-specific and all-causes survival analyses of patients with screen-detected cancer and patients with interval cancer in the endoscopic screening group and radiographic screening group using the Kaplan-Meier method. Since the screening interval was 1 year, interval cancer was defined as gastric cancer detected within 1 year after a negative result. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to investigate the risk factors associated with gastric cancer-specific and all-causes death. Results: A total of 1,493 gastric cancer patients (endoscopic screening group: n = 347; radiographic screening group: n = 166; outpatient group: n = 980) were identified from the Tottori Cancer Registry from 2001 to 2008. The gastric cancer-specific survival rates were higher in the endoscopic screening group than in the radiographic screening group and the outpatients group. In the endoscopic screening group, the gastric cancer-specific survival rate of the patients with screen-detected cancer and the patients with interval cancer were nearly equal (P = 0.869). In the radiographic screening group, the gastric cancer-specific survival rate of the patients with screen-detected cancer was higher than that of the patients with interval cancer (P = 0.009). For gastric cancer-specific death, the hazard ratio of interval cancer in the endoscopic screening group was 0.216 for gastric cancer death (95%CI: 0.054-0.868) compared with the outpatient group. Conclusion: The survival rate and the risk of gastric cancer death among the patients with screen-detected cancer and patients with interval cancer were not significantly different in the annual endoscopic screening. These results suggest the potential of endoscopic screening in reducing mortality from gastric cancer.

Suggested Citation

  • Chisato Hamashima & Michiko Shabana & Mikizo Okamoto & Yoneatsu Osaki & Takuji Kishimoto, 2015. "Survival Analysis of Patients with Interval Cancer Undergoing Gastric Cancer Screening by Endoscopy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-15, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0126796
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126796
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0126796
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0126796&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0126796?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kui Son Choi & Jae Kwan Jun & Eun-Cheol Park & Sohee Park & Kyu Won Jung & Mi Ah Han & Il Ju Choi & Hoo-Yeon Lee, 2012. "Performance of Different Gastric Cancer Screening Methods in Korea: A Population-Based Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-8, November.
    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. Clara Benedetta Conti & Stefano Agnesi & Miki Scaravaglio & Pietro Masseria & Marco Emilio Dinelli & Massimo Oldani & Fabio Uggeri, 2023. "Early Gastric Cancer: Update on Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Ming-ming He & Wen-jing Wu & Feng Wang & Zhi-qiang Wang & Dong-sheng Zhang & Hui-yan Luo & Miao-zhen Qiu & Feng-hua Wang & Chao Ren & Zhao-lei Zeng & Rui-hua Xu, 2013. "S-1-Based Chemotherapy versus Capecitabine-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Gastric Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    3. Jung, Minsoo, 2015. "National Cancer Screening Programs and Evidence-Based Healthcare Policy in South Korea," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(1), pages 26-32.
    4. Rachel Farber & Nehmat Houssami & Isabelle Barnes & Kevin McGeechan & Alexandra Barratt & Katy J. L. Bell, 2022. "Considerations for Evaluating the Introduction of New Cancer Screening Technology: Use of Interval Cancers to Assess Potential Benefits and Harms," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-17, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0126796. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.