Dataset Information

Preexisting stress-related diagnoses and mortality: A Danish cancer cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This study evaluated the association between preexisting stress-related diagnoses and mortality in a Danish population-based cancer cohort.

Methods

This study included Danish patients with cancer diagnosed in 1995-2011 who had a stress-related diagnosis before their cancer diagnosis. Cancer patients without a prior stress-related diagnosis were matched 5:1 to the stress disorder cohort by cancer site, age group, calendar period, and sex. The 5-year cumulative incidence of cancer-specific and all-cause mortality was computed by stress-related diagnosis category. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) associating stress-related diagnoses with mortality were computed by follow-up time, stress-related diagnosis category, stage, comorbidity status, and cancer type.

Results

This study identified 4437 cancer patients with a preexisting stress-related diagnosis and 22,060 matched cancer cohort members. The 5-year cumulative risk of cancer-specific mortality was 33% (95% CI, 32%-35%) for those with a preexisting stress-related diagnosis and 29% (95% CI, 28%-29%) for those without a prior stress-related diagnosis. Cancer patients with a preexisting stress-related diagnosis had a 1.3 times higher cancer-specific mortality rate than the comparison cohort members (95% CI, 1.2-1.5). This increase persisted across categories of stress-related diagnosis. The association varied by stage and cancer type, with more pronounced associations found among those with a late stage at diagnosis and hematological malignancies.

Conclusions

Cancer patients with preexisting stress-related diagnoses had increased rates of cancer-specific and all-cause mortality. The results suggest that psychiatric comorbidities may be an important consideration for cancer prognosis, and cancer treatment informed by a patient's history may improve outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Collin LJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8882160 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Preexisting stress-related diagnoses and mortality: A Danish cancer cohort study.

Collin Lindsay J LJ Veres Katalin K Gradus Jaimie L JL Ahern Thomas P TP Lash Timothy L TL Sørensen Henrik Toft HT

Cancer 20211119 6

<h4>Background</h4>This study evaluated the association between preexisting stress-related diagnoses and mortality in a Danish population-based cancer cohort.<h4>Methods</h4>This study included Danish patients with cancer diagnosed in 1995-2011 who had a stress-related diagnosis before their cancer diagnosis. Cancer patients without a prior stress-related diagnosis were matched 5:1 to the stress disorder cohort by cancer site, age group, calendar period, and sex. The 5-year cumulative incidence ...[more]

PMID: 34797563

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPreclinical animal studies have suggested that myeloid cell-synthesized coagulation factor X dampens antitumor immunity and that rivaroxaban, a direct factor Xa inhibitor, can be used to promote tumor immunity. This study was aimed at assessing whether patients with atrial fibrillation taking direct factor Xa inhibitors have lower risk of cancer and cancer-related mortality than patients taking the direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran.Methods and findingsThis nationwide population-based cohort study in Denmark included adult patients with atrial fibrillation and without a history of cancer, who started taking a factor Xa inhibitor or dabigatran between 2011 and 2015. Data on medical history, outcomes, and drug use were acquired through Danish healthcare registries. The primary outcome was any cancer. Secondary outcomes were cancer-related mortality and all-cause mortality. Outcome events were assessed during 5 years of follow-up in an intention-to-treat analysis. The propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to compute cumulative incidence and subdistribution hazard ratios (SHRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with death as a competing event. Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression and including in the model sex, age group at index date, comorbidities, and use of comedications. A total of 11,742 patients with atrial fibrillation starting a factor Xa inhibitor and 11,970 patients starting dabigatran were included. Mean age was 75.2 years (standard deviation [SD] 11.2) in the factor Xa cohort and 71.7 years (SD 11.1) in the dabigatran cohort. On the basis of the propensity score-weighted models, after 5 years of follow-up, no substantial difference in the cumulative incidence of cancer was observed between the factor Xa inhibitor (2,157/23,711; 9.11%, 95% CI [8.61%,9.63%]) and dabigatran (2,294/23,715; 9.68%, 95% CI [9.14%,10.25%]) groups (SHR 0.94, 95% CI [0.89,1.00], P value 0.0357). We observed no difference in cancer-related mortality (factor Xa inhibitors cohort 1,028/23,711; 4.33%, 95% CI [4.02%,4.68%]. Dabigatran cohort 1,001/23,715; 4.22%, 95% CI [3.83%,4.66%]; SHR 1.03, 95% CI [0.94,1.12]), but all-cause mortality was higher in the factor Xa inhibitor cohort (factor Xa inhibitors cohort 7,416/23,711; 31.31%, 95% CI [30.37%,32.29%]. Dabigatran cohort 6,531/23,715; 27.56%, 95% CI [26.69%,28.45%]; HR 1.17, 95% CI [1.13,1.21]). The main limitations of the study were the possibility of residual confounding and the short follow-up period.ConclusionsIn this population based cohort study, factor Xa inhibitor use was not associated with an overall lower incidence of cancer or cancer-related mortality when compared to dabigatran. We did observe an increase in all-cause mortality in the factor Xa inhibitor cohort.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with multimorbidity are frequent users of healthcare, but fragmented care may lead to suboptimal treatment. Yet, this has never been examined across healthcare sectors on a national scale. We aimed to quantify care fragmentation using various measures and to analyze the associations with patient outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a register-based nationwide cohort study with 4.7 million Danish adult citizens. All healthcare contacts to primary care and hospitals during 2018 were recorded. Clinical fragmentation indicators included number of healthcare contacts, involved providers, provider transitions, and hospital trajectories. Formal fragmentation indices assessed care concentration, dispersion, and contact sequence. The patient outcomes were potentially inappropriate medication and all-cause mortality adjusted for demographics, socioeconomic factors, and morbidity level.ResultsThe number of involved healthcare providers, provider transitions, and hospital trajectories rose with increasing morbidity levels. Patients with 3 versus 6 conditions had a mean of 4.0 versus 6.9 involved providers and 6.6 versus 13.7 provider transitions. The proportion of contacts to the patient's own general practice remained stable across morbidity levels. High levels of care fragmentation were associated with higher rates of potentially inappropriate medication and increased mortality on all fragmentation measures after adjusting for demographic characteristics, socioeconomic factors, and morbidity. The strongest associations with potentially inappropriate medication and mortality were found for ≥ 20 contacts versus none (incidence rate ratio 2.83, 95% CI 2.77-2.90) and ≥ 20 hospital trajectories versus none (hazard ratio 10.8, 95% CI 9.48-12.4), respectively. Having less than 25% of contacts with your usual provider was associated with an incidence rate ratio of potentially inappropriate medication of 1.49 (95% CI 1.40-1.58) and a mortality hazard ratio of 2.59 (95% CI 2.36-2.84) compared with full continuity. For the associations between fragmentation measures and patient outcomes, there were no clear interactions with number of conditions.ConclusionsSeveral clinical indicators of care fragmentation were associated with morbidity level. Care fragmentation was associated with higher rates of potentially inappropriate medication and increased mortality even when adjusting for the most important confounders. Frequent contact to the usual provider, fewer transitions, and better coordination were associated with better patient outcomes regardless of morbidity level.

Project description:BackgroundCancer-specific survival estimates rely on precise and correct data on the cause of death; however, these data can be difficult to acquire, particularly in elderly patients where comorbidity is common. Furthermore, while some deaths are directly related to cancer, others are more complex, with cancer merely contributing. Another, more precise, method is to assess the relative mortality, i.e., mortality in patients compared to the general population. The aims of this study were to describe the relative mortality in soft tissue sarcoma, and to compare the relative mortality with the cancer-specific mortality.MethodsWe included 1246 patients treated for soft tissue sarcoma and 6230 individually age- and sex-matched individuals from the general population. The relative mortality was estimated as rates, and rate ratios adjusted for comorbidity. Mortality rate ratios were computed using the Cox proportional hazard model for 0-5 years and 5-10 years, according to age, sex and level of comorbidity. The cancer-specific mortality was compared to the corresponding relative mortality.ResultsThe overall 5- and 10-year relative mortality was 32.8% and 36.0%. Patients with low-grade soft tissue sarcoma did not have increased mortality compared with the general population. Soft tissue sarcoma patients had a 4.4 times higher risk of dying within the first five years after diagnosis and a 1.6 times higher risk between five and ten years compared with the general comparison cohort. The relative mortality varied according to age, grade, stage at diagnosis, and level of comorbidity, being highest in younger patients and in patients without comorbidity. The overall 5- and 10-year cancer-specific mortality was underestimated by 1.5 and overestimated by 0.7 percentage points compared to the relative mortality, respectively. No statistical significant difference between the relative and the cancer-specific mortality was found.ConclusionThe relative mortality provides an unbiased and accurate method to differentiate between cancer-specific and non-cancer-specific deaths. However, when data on the cause of death is of a sufficient quality, there is no difference between relative mortality and disease-specific mortality based on death certificates.

Dataset Information

Preexisting stress-related diagnoses and mortality: A Danish cancer cohort study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Preexisting stress-related diagnoses and mortality: A Danish cancer cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets