Cargando…

Effect of Marital Status on the Survival of Patients With Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction: A Population-Based, Propensity-Matched Study

BACKGROUND: Marital status has been reported as an independent prognostic factor in various types of malignancies. However, the association between marital status and outcomes of patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) has not been fully explored. To this end, we aimed to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Sihan, Chen, Liubo, Chen, Dongdong, Chao, Jian, Shao, Yangliu, Tang, Kejun, Chen, Wenteng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8689606/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34910613
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10732748211066309
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Marital status has been reported as an independent prognostic factor in various types of malignancies. However, the association between marital status and outcomes of patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) has not been fully explored. To this end, we aimed to investigate the effect of marital status on survival of AGE patients. METHODS: The Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (2010–2015) was used to extract eligible patients with Siewert type II AEG. Meanwhile, propensity score matching was performed to match 1576 unmarried patients with 1576 married patients. Kaplan–Meier method with log-rank test was used to plot survival curves, univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were adopted to investigate the association of marital status with overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in AEG patients before and after matching. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis in the unmatched cohort revealed that marital status was an independent prognostic factor in patients with Siewert type II AEG. Unmarried patients had poorer OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12–1.29, P < .001) and poorer CSS (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.10–1.29, P < .001) than married patients before matching. Additionally, widowed patients had the poorest OS (HR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.11–1.44, P < .001) and CSS (HR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.12–1.48, P < .001) compared with married patients. Furthermore, unmarried status remained as an independent prognostic for both OS (HR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.10–1.31, P < .001) and CSS (HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.08–1.30, P < .001) in 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis. Subgroup analysis further revealed that OS and CSS rates were significantly higher in married patients than unmarried ones in most subgroups stratified by different variables. CONCLUSIONS: This population-based study identified that marital status was an independent prognostic indicator for AEG patients. Married AEG patients had better prognosis than their unmarried counterparts.