Dataset Information

The Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Epidemic Has Reached Hungary: A Multicenter, Cross-Sectional Study

ABSTRACT:

Background

The epidemiology of esophageal cancer has changed dramatically over the past 4 decades in many Western populations. We aimed to understand the Hungarian epidemiologic trends of esophageal squamous cell cancer (SCC) and adenocarcinoma (AC).

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional study using data from esophageal cancer patients diagnosed between 1992 and 2018 at eight tertiary referral centers in four major cities of Hungary. We retrospectively identified cases in the electronic databases of each center and collected data on gender, age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, specialty of the origin center, histological type, and localization of the tumor. Patients were grouped based on the two main histological types: AC or SCC. For statistical analysis, we used linear regression models, chi-square tests, and independent sample t tests.

Results

We extracted data on 3,283 patients with esophageal cancer. Of these, 2,632 were diagnosed with either of the two main histological types; 737 had AC and 1,895 SCC. There was no significant difference in the gender ratio of the patients between AC and SCC (80.1 vs 81.8% males, respectively; p = 0.261). The relative incidence of AC increased over the years (p < 0.001, b = 1.19 CI: 0.84–1.54). AC patients were older at diagnosis than SCC patients (64.37 ± 11.59 vs 60.30 ± 10.07 years, p < 0.001). The age of patients at the diagnosis of primary esophageal cancer increased over time (p < 0.001, R = 0.119).

Conclusions

The rapid increase in the relative incidence of AC and simultaneous decrease of the relative incidence of SCC suggest that this well-established Western phenomenon is also present in Hungary.

SUBMITTER: Tinusz B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7786275 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionBefore the mass vaccination, epidemiological control measures were the only means of containing the COVID-19 epidemic. Their effectiveness determined the consequences of the COVID-19 epidemic. Our study evaluated the impact of sociodemographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors on patient-reported epidemiological control measures.MethodsA nationwide representative sample of 1008 randomly selected adults were interviewed in person between 15 March and 30 May 2021. The prevalence of test-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was 12.1%, of testing was 33.7%, and of contact tracing among test-confirmed infected subjects was 67.9%. The vaccination coverage was 52.4%.ResultsAccording to the multivariable logistic regression models, the occurrence of infection was not influenced by sociodemographic and lifestyle factors or by the presence of chronic disease. Testing was more frequent among middle-aged adults (aOR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.10-2.13) and employed adults (aOR = 2.06, 95% CI 1.42-3.00), and was more frequent among adults with a higher education (aORsecondary = 1.93, 95% CI 1.20-3.13; aORtertiary = 3.19, 95% CI 1.81-5.63). Contact tracing was more frequently implemented among middle-aged (aOR41-7y = 3.33, 95% CI 1.17-9.45) and employed (aOR = 4.58, 95% CI 1.38-15.22), and those with chronic diseases (aOR = 5.92, 95% CI 1.56-22.47). Positive correlation was observed between age groups and vaccination frequency (aOR41-70y = 2.94, 95% CI 2.09-4.15; aOR71+y = 14.52, 95% CI 7.33-28.77). Higher than primary education (aORsecondary = 1.69, 95% CI 1.08-2.63; aORtertiary = 4.36, 95% CI 2.46-7.73) and the presence of a chronic disease (aOR = 2.58, 95% CI 1.75-3.80) positively impacted vaccination. Regular smoking was inversely correlated with vaccination (aOR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.44-0.83).ConclusionsThe survey indicated that testing, contact tracing, and vaccination were seriously influenced by socioeconomic position; less so by chronic disease prevalence and very minimally by lifestyle. The etiological role of socioeconomic inequalities in epidemic measure implementation likely generated socioeconomic inequality in COVID-19-related complication and death rates.