| Title |
Differences in cancer survival by sex: a population-based study using cancer registry data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Causes & Control, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10552-018-1079-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nina Afshar, Dallas R. English, Vicky Thursfield, Paul L. Mitchell, Luc Te Marvelde, Helen Farrugia, Graham G. Giles, Roger L. Milne |
| Abstract |
Few large-scale studies have investigated sex differences in cancer survival and little is known about their temporal and age-related patterns. We used cancer registry data for first primary cancers diagnosed between 1982 and 2015 in Victoria, Australia. Cases were followed until the end of 2015 through linkage to death registries. Differences in survival were assessed for 25 cancers using the Pohar-Perme estimator of net survival and the excess mortality rate ratio (EMRR) adjusting for age and year of diagnosis. Five-year net survival for all cancers combined was lower for men (47.1%; 95% CI 46.9-47.4) than women (52.0%; 95% CI 51.7-52.3); EMRR 1.13 (95% CI 1.12-1.14; p < 0.001). A survival disadvantage for men was observed for 11 cancers: head and neck, esophagus, colorectum, pancreas, lung, bone, melanoma, mesothelioma, kidney, thyroid, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In contrast, women had lower survival from cancers of the bladder, renal pelvis, and ureter. For the majority of cancers with survival differences, the EMRR decreased with increasing age at diagnosis; for colorectal, esophageal, and kidney cancer, the EMRR increased with time since diagnosis. Identifying the underlying reasons behind sex differences in cancer survival is necessary to address inequalities, which may improve outcomes for men and women. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 16% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 19 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 23% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 23 | 53% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 February 2022.
All research outputs
#883,740
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Causes & Control
#77
of 2,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,035
of 339,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Causes & Control
#2
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,023 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.