Marital status independently predicts prostate cancer survival in men who underwent radical prostatectomy: An analysis of 95,846 individuals
- Authors:
- Published online on: February 6, 2018 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2018.7964
- Pages: 4737-4744
-
Copyright: © Huang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.
Abstract
Introduction
Socioeconomic and demographic factors, including marital status, have a marked effect on the survival of patients with various diseases. Compared with married patients with cancer, patients with cancer who have never married, including divorced, separated or widowed, exhibit shorter overall survival (OS) and higher mortality rates (1–4). Previous studies have described the importance of marital status on the outcomes of patients with different types of cancer (4–7). However, the influence of marital status on the survival rates of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) remains controversial.
Two large-scale population-based studies, based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database, indicated that patients who were separated/divorced/widowed (SDW) exhibited higher cancer-specific and overall mortality rates (8,9). Similarly, another study (10) consisting of 3,570 patients with PCa treated in three prospective Radiation Therapy Oncology Group clinical trials revealed that the survival rates of unmarried individuals were significantly decreased compared with married individuals. However, a study by Schiffmann et al (11) using the Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer database indicated that married men with PCa did not have a significantly higher OS rate compared with SDW men over follow-up period of 48 months.
It has been demonstrated that the cancer-specific mortality rate for PCa differs significantly between married and SDW individuals. However, there are no significant differences in mortality rates between married individuals and those that have never been married [hazard ratio (HR), 1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91–1.17] (8). Li et al (7) revealed that widowed patients had the lowest survival rate among patients with colorectal cancer (HR, 1.49, 95% CI, 1.45–1.53). Furthermore, no clear differences were observed between divorced/separated and married patients with pancreatic cancer at any stage in cause-special survival (CSS) (12). All of these indicate that the heterogeneity of unmarried individuals may somewhat influence the predictive value. However, previous studies (8–11) compared the survival outcomes of patients with PCa in terms of marital status without differentiating separated, divorced and widowed status. Several of these studies (9–11) did not even distinguish between patients that had never married and those that were SDW. In addition, the proportion of married individuals in the population, the prostate specific antigen (PSA) based screening strategy, mortality rate, surgical equipment, as well as the guidelines, including AUA (13) and EAU (14,15), have changed, which may affect the impact of marital status on patient outcomes (16,17).
In the United States, PCa is the most commonly diagnosed type of non-skin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-associated mortality in men (18). Marriage remains an important part of many people's lives, therefore, data from the SEER database was used to determine the aspects of marital status that affect OS and CSS in patients with PCa who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP).
Patients and methods
Patients
The current SEER database (November 2015 submission; http://seer.cancer.gov/), consisting of 18 population-based cancer registries, represents ~28% of the entire population in the United States. The SEER*Stat (National Cancer Institute SEER*Stat software, version 8.3.2; http://www.seer.cancer.gov/seerstat/) was used to identify a cohort of patients with PCa with known marital status who underwent RP between 2004 and 2009. The inclusion criteria were as follows: i) Diagnosis of PCa confirmed by histology; ii) age at diagnosis, >18 years old; iii) presence of a single PCa or PCa as the first of ≥2 primary cancers; and iv) the cause of mortality and survival time were documented. Additionally, only patients with prostate adenocarcinomas, including 8,140, 8,141, 8,143, 8,255, 8,260, 8,310 and 8,323, as classified by the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd edition morphology codes system (19) were included in the present study. Patients reported by a death certificate or autopsies were excluded. Data regarding patients included in the SEER database contain no identifiers and are publicly available for cancer-based analyses. Therefore, extra informed consent from patients and ethics committee approval were not required.
Patient clinicopathological characteristics
Clinicopathological parameters, including age at diagnosis, ethnicity, year of diagnosis, grade, SEER historic stage A, sequence number, Gleason score (GS), marital status, cause of mortality and survival months were extracted from the SEER database. According to the SEER staging system, patients were categorized as localized or regional, or distant or unstaged. Within the SEER database, marital status was recorded at the time of diagnosis. Patients were categorized as married, divorced, widowed, separated or never married. In the present study, separated and divorced individuals in the separated and divorced groups were combined into a divorced/separated group.
Statistical analysis
Two-sided χ2 tests were used to compare patient baseline characteristics in different marital status groups. As to follow-up time, one-way analysis of variance and a post hoc test by Dunnett's test were used to compare the difference. Survival curves were generated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and differences in the survival rates were assessed using the log-rank test. The impact of marital status and other clinicopathological parameters on survival outcomes were evaluated by building multivariable Cox regression models. The primary endpoint of the present study was CSS. PCa-associated mortality was treated as an event and mortality from other causes was treated as a censored observation. The secondary endpoint was OS. All statistical analyses were performed using the statistical software package SPSS for Windows, version 19 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). All P-values were two tailed and P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.
Results
Patient characteristics
In total, 95,847 men with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of PCa who underwent RP between 2004 and 2009 were included in the present study. Of these, 78,244 (81.6%) were married, 9,072 (9.5%) were single, 6,627 (6.9%) were divorced/separated and 1,903 (2.0%) were widowed (Table I). The mean follow-up time was 78.3 (22.8) months. Men in the married group had the longest follow-up time compared with the other three groups (all P<0.05). The widowed group contained a significantly higher (P<0.05) number of elderly patients (≥66 years old), a higher proportion of patients with distant disease and a higher proportion of patients with a high GS (Gleason score, ≥8).
 | Table I.Baseline demographic and tumor characteristics of patients with PCa included in the SEER database between 2004–2009. |
Marital status and OS
The 8-year OS was 93% in the married group, 91% in the never married group, 88% in the divorced/separated group and 86% in the widowed group (P<0.001). Several other covariates, including an age ≥66 years old (P<0.001), African-American ethnicity (P<0.001), poorly or undifferentiated tumor grade (P<0.001), distant disease (P<0.001), high GS (P<0.001) and the presence of ≥2 primary types of cancer (P<0.001) were identified as significant risk factors for poor OS following univariate analysis. These covariates were further validated as independent prognostic factors using multivariate analysis (Table II). Compared with the married group, men in the three unmarried groups tended to exhibit worse OS (never married group: HR, 1.39, 95% CI, 1.27–1.51; divorced/separated group: HR, 1.82, 95% CI, 1.67–1.98; widowed group: HR, 1.69, 95% CI, 1.47–1.93), following adjustment for age, ethnicity, tumor grade, tumor stage, GS and sequence number (Table II).
Marital status and CSS
Compared with the married group, men in the divorced/separated and widowed groups had a worse CSS (P<0.001, P=0.001, respectively), while men in the never married group exhibited a similar CSS (P=0.134) according to log-rank test (Fig. 1A). Cox regression multivariate analysis of CSS was performed and revealed that the marital status and several other covariates remained as independent prognostic factors (Table II). Compared with young men and non-African-American men, elderly men and African-American men had poorer CSS (HR, 1.46, 95% CI, 1.10–1.93; HR, 1.19, 95% CI, 1.01–1.40, respectively). GS≥8 and combining with distant disease are predictive factors of worse cancer-specific mortality (HR, 11.42, P<0.001; HR.11.27, P<0.001, respectively). In terms of the marital status, men in the divorced/separated group (HR, 1.61, 95% CI, 1.34–1.93), but not in the never married or widowed group (HR, 1.20, 95% CI, 1.00–1.44; HR, 1.13, 95% CI, 0.81–1.58), had a poorer CSS, when compared with men in the married group, following adjustment for age, ethnicity, grade, stage, GS and sequence number.
Considering the effect of cancer stage and GS on CSS, subgroup analyses were performed to assess if they influenced the effect of marital status on CSS. The results demonstrated that marital status was not a valid risk factor among men with distant disease according to univariate and multivariate analyses (P=0.146 and P=0.187, respectively). However, among men diagnosed with localized/regional disease, marital status significantly affected CSS (P<0.001; Table III). Furthermore, marital status remained an independent prognostic factor in each GS group, as determined by univariate and multivariate analyses (Fig. 1B-D and Table IV). It was observed that the HR of CSS among divorced/separated men decreased when GS increased (GS≤6: HR, 2.5, 95% CI, 1.54–4.04; GS=7: HR, 1.71, 95% CI, 1.24–2.36; GS≥8: HR, 1.50, 95% CI, 1.17–1.93; all P<0.05).
| Table III.Univariate and multivariate analysis of marital status on prostate cancer-cause specific survival based on different SEER historic stages. |
| Table IV.Univariate and multivariate analysis of marital status on prostate cancer-cause specific survival in terms of different GS range. |
Discussion
The effect of marital status on the survival of patients with PCa who have undergone RP has been studied using SEER and the Martini-Clinic Prostate Cancer database (8,11). However, the results of these investigations have not been consistent and no studies have been conducted focusing on the heterogeneity of unmarried patients. Therefore, the present study was performed to assess the effect of marital status on the outcomes of men with PCa. Multivariate analyses of 95,847 men revealed that marital status was an independent prognostic factor of OS and CSS. Compared with married men, divorced or separated men with PCa had a higher GS at diagnosis (HR, 1.12, 95% CI, 1.03–1.22) and those patients exhibited the worst survival outcomes independent of age, ethnicity, grade, stage or sequence number. Due to the distributional discrepancies of GS, a grade-by-grade comparison was performed. Interestingly, the HR of CSS for divorced or separated men decreased when GS increased, compared with married men (GS≤6: HR, 2.5; GS=7: HR: 1.71; GS≥8: HR: 1.50, respectively).
Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the inferior survival outcomes of unmarried individuals. Divorced/separated men are more likely to be diagnosed with high grade PCa compared with married men (HR, 1.12, 95% CI: 1.03–1.22, P=0.007). Furthermore, patients with PCa and high GS have poorer PCa-related survival outcomes (20,21). However, this does not explain why the married and widowed patients, had a similar CSS. Psychosocial factors may account for such a difference in CSS; for example, married men may be encouraged by their spouses to choose a more curative therapy (8,22,23).
It is known that men with cancer exhibit more severe psychological distress than those with other chronic health conditions (24). Separated and divorced individuals have a higher risk of distress [odds ratio (OR), 5.25; OR, 2.79, respectively], whereas married are less likely to experience distress, depression and anxiety (24,25). In addition, being married is associated with higher perceived tangible and emotional support (both P<0.001), which may influence follow-up care use by fostering a sense of obligation to manage one's health and encouraging access to medical care (26). Married men may also benefit from increased financial resources and better access to health insurance.
Psychosocial support may predict the prognosis of men with cancer (27), Garssen (28) summarized the results of 70 prospective studies and revealed that a low level of social support and chronic depression can predict unfavorable prognosis. Neurohormones and neurotransmitters (cortisol and norepinephrine), the vagal nerve and inflammation, DNA damage, interleukin-1 and oxytocin may be specific mediators in this potential association either by directly affecting tumorigenesis or indirectly affecting other factors, such as cellular immunity (27). It has been demonstrated that the activity of natural killer cells is low when an individual perceives a lack of social support (29), which may result in a failure to treat and control cancer (30).
In the present study, as well as 88,407 patients with a single primary PCa, 7,439 patients with >1 primary cancer were also included. Among these patients, PCa was the first diagnosed type of cancer. In the multivariate analysis, it was observed that novel-onset cancer was associated with poorer OS and CSS (HR, 5.76; HR, 1.95, respectively), following adjustment for age, ethnicity, marital status, GS, stage and grade.
Compared with that in the married group, a higher proportion of patients in the widowed group had distant disease and a high GS (HR, 2.28, P=0.027; HR, 1.23, P=0.005, respectively); however they had a similar CSS when compared with the married group. By contrast, the results of previous studies investigating two other types of solid cancer demonstrated that widowed patients exhibited significantly poorer CSS (7,12). Two possible reasons may explain this discrepancy. Firstly, 1,765 of 13,370 patients with pancreatic cancer and 21,279 of 112,776 patients with colorectal cancer were widowed in these two studies. However, in the present study, widowed men occupied a smaller fraction of the total cases (1,903/95,846) and only 37 widowed men succumbed from PCa with a mean of 77 months' of follow-up, which made it hard to obtain positive observations. Secondly, ‘widowed’ in the present study only referred to widowed men, which was different from the definition of ‘widowed’ in the other studies investigating pancreatic and colorectal cancer. Therefore, the CSS of widowed patients with PCa should be further analyzed in a large-scale population.
The current study demonstrated that, among men with localized or regional PCa, marital status was an independent prognostic factor of CSS (P<0.001). However, among those diagnosed with distant PCa, there was no difference in CSS among men with different marital status, as determined by univariate and multivariate analyses (P=0.146 and P=0.187, respectively). This may have been due to the small sample size, which only accounted for 0.152% of the total patients, which may make it more difficult to detect the effect of marital status on CSS in patients with PCa.
Although all data were derived from a large population-based study, several potential limitations should also be taken into consideration. Firstly, PSA levels in men diagnosed between 2004 and 2009 are currently being removed and reviewed for potential error. PSA was introduced as a component of staging in the 7th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) in 2010 (31). It was difficult to convert from AJCC 6th to AJCC 7th; therefore, SEER historic stage A, which categorizes cancer as localized or regional, distant or unstaged, was used instead of the AJCC staging system. The SEER database does not collect information concerning education, insurance and income status, diet, or family status, all of which may influence the effect of the marital status on patient survival (9,32–35). Furthermore, the quality of marriage is hard to document, and the marital status may change over time. As the current study did not identify whether unmarried men lived with their partners, a more concrete conclusion could not be reached. Thirdly, information regarding comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease and several other chronic illnesses, which have been proven to exhibit an impact on cancer survival (36–38), were not included in the SEER database. Lack of these covariates may partial bias the observations of the present study.
To conclude, the results of the current study support the hypothesis that marital status is an independent prognostic factor of OS and CSS. Divorced or separated men are more likely to exhibit a higher GS PCa at diagnosis and the poorest survival outcomes independent of age, ethnicity, grade, stage and sequence number. This association between marital status and poor outcomes was maintained in each GS group. Psychosocial factors may be the main reasons for the poorer survival outcomes of divorced or separated men. Although patients in the widowed group had a higher proportion of patients with distant disease and high GS, they had a similar CSS compared with the married group. Considering the low proportion of widowed men included in the current study, a large-scale study involving widowed patients with PCa is required. Further understanding of the potential associations among the marital status, psychosocial factors, survival outcomes may help in identifying sound strategies of treating men with PCa.
Acknowledgements
The present study used the linked SEER database. The authors acknowledge the efforts of the SEER program tumor registries in the creation of the SEER database. Besides, the authors would like to thank Lu Feng for revising the study. The present study was supported by Jiangsu Provincial Commission of Health and Family Planning (grant no. H201550).
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
|
Kaplan RM and Kronick RG: Marital status and longevity in the United States population. J Epidemiol Community Health. 60:760–765. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Hu YR and Goldman N: Mortality differentials by marital status: An international comparison. Demography. 27:233–250. 1990. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Kravdal O: The impact of marital status on cancer survival. Soc Sci Med. 52:357–368. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Aizer AA, Chen MH, McCarthy EP, Mendu ML, Koo S, Wilhite TJ, Graham PL, Choueiri TK, Hoffman KE, Martin NE, et al: Marital status and survival in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 31:3869–3876. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Hellenthal NJ, Chamie K, Ramirez ML and deVere White RW: Sociodemographic factors associated with nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 181:1013–1019. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Pruthi RS, Lentz AC, Sand M, Kouba E and Wallen EM: Impact of marital status in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. World J Urol. 27:573–576. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Li Q, Gan L, Liang L, Li X and Cai S: The influence of marital status on stage at diagnosis and survival of patients with colorectal cancer. Oncotarget. 6:7339–7347. 2015.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Abdollah F, Sun M, Thuret R, Abdo A, Morgan M, Jeldres C, Shariat SF, Perrotte P, Montorsi F and Karakiewicz PI: The effect of marital status on stage and survival of prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy: A population-based study. Cancer Causes Control. 22:1085–1095. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Tyson MD, Andrews PE, Etzioni DA, Ferrigni RG, Humphreys MR, Swanson SK and Castle EK: Marital status and prostate cancer outcomes. Can J Urol. 20:6702–6706. 2013.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Du KL, Bae K, Movsas B, Yan Y, Bryan C and Bruner DW: Impact of marital status and race on outcomes of patients enrolled in radiation therapy oncology group prostate cancer trials. Support Care Cancer. 20:1317–1325. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Schiffmann J, Beyer B, Tennstedt P, Boehm K, Mehring G, Schlomm T, Salomon G, Karakiewicz P and Graefen M: Oncological outcome after radical prostatectomy: Marital status does not make a difference. Int J Urol. 22:484–489. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Wang XD, Qian JJ, Bai DS, Li ZN, Jiang GQ and Yao J: Marital status independently predicts pancreatic cancer survival in patients treated with surgical resection: An analysis of the SEER database. Oncotarget. 7:24880–24887. 2016.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, Chen RC, Crispino T, Fontanarosa J, Freedland SJ, Greene K, Klotz LH, Makarov DV, et al: Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part I: Risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol. Dec 14–2017.(Epub ahead of print). | |
|
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, Fossati N, Gross T, Henry AM, Joniau S, et al: EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part. 1:Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71: 618–629. 2017. | |
|
Cornford P, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, De Santis M, Gross T, Henry AM, Joniau S, Lam TB, Mason MD, et al: EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: Treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 71:630–642. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Kravdal H and Syse A: Changes over time in the effect of marital status on cancer survival. BMC Public Health. 11:8042011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Jaffe DH, Manor O, Eisenbach Z and Neumark YD: The protective effect of marriage on mortality in a dynamic society. Ann Epidemiol. 17:540–547. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Siegel RL, Miller KD and Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 66:7–30. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Fritz A, Percy C, Jack A, Shanmugaratnam K, Sobin L, Parkin DM and Whelan S: International Classification of Diseases for Oncology. 3rd. World Health Organization; Geneva: 2000 | |
|
Tefilli MV, Gheiler EL, Tiguert R, Sakr W, Grignon DJ, Banerjee M, Pontes JE and Wood DP Jr: Should Gleason score 7 prostate cancer be considered a unique grade category? Urology. 53:372–377. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Ohno Y, Ohori M, Nakashima J, Okubo H, Satake N, Hashimoto T and Tachibana M: Association between preoperative serum total cholesterol level and biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer patients who underwent radical prostatectomy. Mol Clin Oncol. 4:1073–1077. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Denberg TD, Beaty BL, Kim FJ and Steiner JF: Marriage and ethnicity predict treatment in localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 103:1819–1825. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Denberg TD, Glodé LM, Steiner JF, Crawford ED and Hoffman RM: Trends and predictors of aggressive therapy for clinical locally advanced prostate carcinoma. BJU Int. 98:335–340. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Kaiser NC, Hartoonian N and Owen JE: Toward a cancer-specific model of psychological distress: Population data from the 2003–2005 National Health Interview Surveys. J Cancer Surviv. 4:291–302. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
DiMatteo MR, Lepper HS and Croghan TW: Depression is a risk factor for noncompliance with medical treatment: Meta-analysis of the effects of anxiety and depression on patient adherence. Arch Intern Med. 160:2101–2107. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Forsythe LP, Alfano CM, Kent EE, Weaver KE, Bellizzi K, Arora N, Aziz N, Keel G and Rowland JH: Social support, self-efficacy for decision-making, and follow-up care use in long-term cancer survivors. Psychooncology. 23:788–796. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Gidron Y and Ronson A: Psychosocial factors, biological mediators, and cancer prognosis: A new look at an old story. Curr Opin Oncol. 20:386–392. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Garssen B: Psychological factors and cancer development: Evidence after 30 years of research. Clin Psychol Rev. 24:315–338. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Levy SM, Herberman RB, Whiteside T, Sanzo K, Lee J and Kirkwood J: Perceived social support and tumor estrogen/progesterone receptor status as predictors of natural killer cell activity in breast cancer patients. Psychosom Med. 52:73–85. 1990. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Antoni MH, Lutgendorf SK, Cole SW, Dhabhar FS, Sephton SE, McDonald PG, Stefanek M and Sood AK: The influence of bio-behavioural factors on tumour biology: Pathways and mechanisms. Nat Rev Cancer. 6:240–248. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Edge SB and Compton CC: The American Joint Committee on Cancer: The 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 17:1471–1474. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Yang M, Kenfield SA, Van Blarigan EL, Batista JL, Sesso HD, Ma J, Stampfer MJ and Chavarro JE: Dietary patterns after prostate cancer diagnosis in relation to disease-specific and total mortality. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 8:545–551. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Kenfield SA, DuPre N, Richman EL, Stampfer MJ, Chan JM and Giovannucci EL: Mediterranean diet and prostate cancer risk and mortality in the health professionals follow-up study. Eur Urol. 65:887–894. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Fossati N, Nguyen DP, Trinh QD, Sammon J, Sood A, Larcher A, Guazzoni G, Montorsi F, Briganti A, Menon M and Abdollah F: The impact of insurance status on tumor characteristics and treatment selection in contemporary patients with prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 13:1351–1358. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Mahal BA, Aizer AA, Ziehr DR, Hyatt AS, Lago-Hernandez C, Chen YW, Choueiri TK, Hu JC, Sweeney CJ, Beard CJ, et al: The association between insurance status and prostate cancer outcomes: Implications for the affordable care act. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 17:273–279. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Polesel J, Gini A, Dal Maso L, Stocco C, Birri S, Taborelli M, Serraino D and Zucchetto A: The impact of diabetes and other metabolic disorders on prostate cancer prognosis. J Diabetes Complications. 30:591–596. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Armenian SH, Xu L, Ky B, Sun C, Farol LT, Pal SK, Douglas PS, Bhatia S and Chao C: Cardiovascular disease among survivors of Adult-onset cancer: A community-based retrospective cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 34:1122–1130. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Zist A, Amir E, Ocana AF and Seruga B: Impact of comorbidity on the outcome in men with advanced prostate cancer treated with docetaxel. Radiol Oncol. 49:402–408. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI |
