Dataset Information

Trends in survival from myeloma, 1990-2015: a competing risks analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Myeloma survival has greatly increased over past decades. We investigated trends in survival over time in New Zealand by age, ethnicity, and geography and thus examined potential inequalities among these population subgroups.

Methods

From data supplied by the New Zealand Ministry of Health, all new diagnoses of multiple myeloma (ICD-10 code C90) between 1990 and 2016 were extracted, as well as their matched mortality data. Cox's proportional hazards regression and competing risks regression were used to estimate multivariable survival functions.

Results

Between 1 January 1990 and 1 December 2015, 6642 myeloma cases were registered by the New Zealand Cancer Registry. Although survival from myeloma increased substantially from 1990-1994 to 2010-2015, 5-year survival was still only about 60% in 2010-2015. The greatest improvement in survival was for people aged 60-69 years at diagnosis. Using Cox's proportional hazards regression, Māori showed an increased risk of myeloma death but this was predominantly due to differences in competing risks among ethnic groups. Competing risks analysis found the greatest improvement in myeloma survival in Pacific Islanders, and in 2010-2015 Māori had better survival than other ethnicities. Myeloma survival improved significantly over time in all regional health authorities but in all time periods the Central and Southern regions had significantly poorer survival than the Midland region.

Conclusions

Improvements in myeloma survival have been unequal across subgroups and regions in New Zealand. Detailed information about utilization of chemotherapeutic agents and transplantation in New Zealand is not available. This information, as well as more detailed hematological data, is essential to further explore the relationships and reasons for differing myeloma survival in population subgroups of New Zealand.

SUBMITTER: Sneyd MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8283947 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To measure the frequency of adequate methods, inadequate methods and poor reporting in published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and test potential factors associated with adequacy of methods and reporting. DESIGN:Retrospective analysis of RCTs included in Cochrane reviews. Time series describes the proportion of RCTs using adequate methods, inadequate methods and poor reporting. A multinomial logit model tests potential factors associated with methods and reporting, including funding source, first author affiliation, clinical trial registration status, study novelty, team characteristics, technology and geography. DATA:Risk of bias assessments for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting, for each RCT, were mapped to bibliometric and funding data. OUTCOMES:Risk of bias on six methodological dimensions and RCT-level overall assessment of adequate methods, inadequate methods or poor reporting. RESULTS:This study analysed 20 571 RCTs. 5.7% of RCTs used adequate methods (N=1173). 59.3% used inadequate methods (N=12 190) and 35.0% were poorly reported (N=7208). The proportion of poorly reported RCTs decreased from 42.5% in 1990 to 30.2% in 2015. The proportion of RCTs using adequate methods increased from 2.6% in 1990 to 10.3% in 2015. The proportion of RCTs using inadequate methods increased from 54.9% in 1990 to 59.5% in 2015. Industry funding, top pharmaceutical company affiliation, trial registration, larger authorship teams, international teams and drug trials were associated with a greater likelihood of using adequate methods. National Institutes of Health funding and university prestige were not. CONCLUSION:Even though reporting has improved since 1990, the proportion of RCTs using inadequate methods is high (59.3%) and increasing, potentially slowing progress and contributing to the reproducibility crisis. Stronger incentives for the use of adequate methods are needed.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To analyse average lifespan and quantify the effect of avoidable/amenable mortality on the difference between state-specific mortality and a low-mortality benchmark in Mexico during 1990-2015. DESIGN:Retrospective cross-sectional demographic analysis using aggregated data. SETTING:Vital statistics from the Mexican civil registration system. PARTICIPANTS:Aggregated national data (from 91.2?million people in 1995 to 119.9 in 2015) grouped in 64 populations (32 Mexican states (including Mexico City) by sex) with cause-of-death data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Cause-specific contributions to the gap in life expectancy with a low-mortality benchmark in three age groups (0-14, 15-49 and 50-84 years). RESULTS:Infants and children under the age of 15 years show improvements towards maximal survival in all states. However, adult males aged 15 to 49 years show deterioration after 2006 in almost every state due to increasing homicides, and a slow recovery thereafter. Out of 35 potential years, females and males live on average 34.57 (34.48 to 34.67) and 33.80 (33.34 to 34.27), respectively. Adults aged 50 to 84 years show an unexpected decrease in the low mortality benchmark, indicating nationwide deterioration among older adults. Females and males in this age group show an average survival of 28.59 (27.43 to 29.75) and 26.52 (25.33 to 27.73) out of 35 potential years, respectively. State gaps from the benchmark were mainly caused by ischaemic heart diseases, diabetes, cirrhosis and homicides. We find large health disparities between states, particularly for the adult population after 2005. CONCLUSIONS:Mexico has succeeded in reducing mortality and between-state inequalities in children. However, adults are becoming vulnerable as they have not been able to reduce the burden of violence and conditions amenable to health services and behaviours, such as diabetes, ischaemic heart diseases and cirrhosis. These trends have led to large health disparities between Mexican states in the last 25 years.