FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2149103312> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2149103312 endingPage "2178" @default.
• W2149103312 startingPage "2177" @default.
• W2149103312 abstract "The past decade has seen increased attention to gender and racial disparities in outcome for a wide variety of malignancies, and melanoma is no exception. Although cutaneous melanoma is predominantly a disease of whites, when it does occur in darker-skinned peoples, outcomes are clearly inferior stage for stage. There are also gender disparities in melanoma incidence and outcome. In the United States in 2011, there were an estimated 70,230 cases of invasive cutaneous melanoma, of which 43% (30,220 cases) occurred in women. However, of the 8,790 melanoma-related deaths, only 35% (3,040 deaths) occurred in women. In Journal of Clinical Oncology, Joosse et al add prospective clinical trial data to the large amount of retrospective information suggesting women with melanoma fare better, stage for stage, than men. In a pooled analysis of 2,672 patients with clinically localized (stage I/II) melanoma enrolled onto four European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer prospective trials, women had observed advantages in overall survival, melanomaspecific survival, and time to lymph node and distant metastases. These advantages were consistently in the 30% range, even when adjusted for other prognostic factors, and were consistent across various subgroups and in younger (presumably premenopausal) and older (postmenopausal) age groups. As is so often the case in melanoma, these observations generate at least as many questions as they answer. A few of the most cogent questions are addressed herein. 1. Is this gender-based disparity real or artifactual? As previously alluded to, a great deal of prior retrospective single-institution and pooled data support improved outcomes for women with melanoma. Population-based data from most countries demonstrate similar trends, such as a recent study from Germany, which showed that women with melanoma were 38% more likely to survive than men and 32% less likely to have melanoma progression (with reduced risk for both nodal and visceral metastases). These results closely mirror those of Joosse et al and seem to strongly support that the gender-based disparity is real rather than artifactual. 2. If real, what is the cause of the disparity? Is the benefit confined to only a subset of women? Available data have addressed the potential cause(s) of a gender-based outcome disparity in melanoma by evaluating estrogen and estrogen-related factors—the contribution of which has been suspected for many years. Whereas previously the only known estrogen receptor (ER) was ER, now ERexpression has been shown to be significantly associated with mortality in melanoma. Furthermore, methylation of ERseems to be associated strongly with progression in melanoma. Additionally,otherdifferencesinhost-tumorinteractions, including potentialprotectivefactorsinwomenormelanoma-stimulatingfactorsin men, have been hypothesized. If the difference was purely based on hormonal influences, the age of onset should affect outcomes in women, in contrast to the findings of Joosse et al. Etiologic and site-specific differences could play a role, given different patterns of occupational and recreational ultraviolet light exposure between men and women. But perhaps most importantly, men consistently demonstrate lower awareness, resistance to screening, and less knowledgeseeking behavior when it comes to skin malignancies. Possibly as a direct consequence of these behavioral traits, men—especially older men—present with thicker tumors and an attendant increased mortality risk. Available data are limited and somewhat conflicting on whether there are subsets of women who fare better or worse. Pregnancy status at diagnosis or afterward was inversely associated with melanoma survival in Sweden. Inverse associations with parity were observed for melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer outcomes in a prospective Norwegian case-control study and for choroidal melanoma outcome in a single-institution study in Massachusetts. The possible influence of parity bears further scrutiny, because it could implicate either hormonal or immunologic influences on melanoma outcomes. 3. What if any therapeutic implications are there for this observation? Should men be treated differently than women (eg, more aggressively)? Should we revisit hormone receptor analysis and/or hormonal therapies such as tamoxifen? At present, the lack of definitive data implicating hormonal or other specific factors in melanoma outcome disparities makes any consideration of different therapeutic interventions for men and women with cutaneous melanoma premature. At one point, tamoxifen was frequently used along with systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy for stage IV melanoma, but prospective clinical trials have not supported its use. An intriguing area that should be further explored is whether the indications for sentinel lymph node biopsy should be different for men and women, given the observed greater propensity for lymphatic metastases in men. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY E D I T O R I A L VOLUME 30 NUMBER 18 JUNE 2" @default.
• W2149103312 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2149103312 creator A5061209536 @default.
• W2149103312 creator A5061524710 @default.
• W2149103312 creator A5074834465 @default.
• W2149103312 date "2012-06-20" @default.
• W2149103312 modified "2023-10-11" @default.
• W2149103312 title "Gender Disparities in Patients With Melanoma: Breaking the Glass Ceiling" @default.
• W2149103312 cites W1565276921 @default.
• W2149103312 cites W1752324982 @default.
• W2149103312 cites W1879616740 @default.
• W2149103312 cites W1986956211 @default.
• W2149103312 cites W1997860675 @default.
• W2149103312 cites W2000077801 @default.
• W2149103312 cites W2025858843 @default.
• W2149103312 cites W2033012359 @default.
• W2149103312 cites W2042475475 @default.
• W2149103312 cites W2049341884 @default.
• W2149103312 cites W2054310029 @default.
• W2149103312 cites W2097985116 @default.
• W2149103312 cites W2109078042 @default.
• W2149103312 cites W2110429401 @default.
• W2149103312 cites W2110431315 @default.
• W2149103312 cites W2116558385 @default.
• W2149103312 cites W2121850614 @default.
• W2149103312 cites W2140219654 @default.
• W2149103312 cites W2141495903 @default.
• W2149103312 cites W2145991261 @default.
• W2149103312 cites W2169392244 @default.
• W2149103312 cites W2208253370 @default.
• W2149103312 doi "https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2011.41.3849" @default.
• W2149103312 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22547593" @default.
• W2149103312 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2149103312 type Work @default.
• W2149103312 sameAs 2149103312 @default.
• W2149103312 citedByCount "17" @default.
• W2149103312 countsByYear W21491033122013 @default.
• W2149103312 countsByYear W21491033122014 @default.
• W2149103312 countsByYear W21491033122015 @default.
• W2149103312 countsByYear W21491033122016 @default.
• W2149103312 countsByYear W21491033122017 @default.
• W2149103312 countsByYear W21491033122018 @default.
• W2149103312 countsByYear W21491033122023 @default.
• W2149103312 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2149103312 hasAuthorship W2149103312A5061209536 @default.
• W2149103312 hasAuthorship W2149103312A5061524710 @default.
• W2149103312 hasAuthorship W2149103312A5074834465 @default.
• W2149103312 hasBestOaLocation W21491033121 @default.
• W2149103312 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2149103312 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2149103312 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2149103312 hasConcept C2777658100 @default.
• W2149103312 hasConcept C2779674044 @default.
• W2149103312 hasConcept C502942594 @default.
• W2149103312 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2149103312 hasConceptScore W2149103312C126322002 @default.
• W2149103312 hasConceptScore W2149103312C17744445 @default.
• W2149103312 hasConceptScore W2149103312C199539241 @default.
• W2149103312 hasConceptScore W2149103312C2777658100 @default.
• W2149103312 hasConceptScore W2149103312C2779674044 @default.
• W2149103312 hasConceptScore W2149103312C502942594 @default.
• W2149103312 hasConceptScore W2149103312C71924100 @default.
• W2149103312 hasIssue "18" @default.
• W2149103312 hasLocation W21491033121 @default.
• W2149103312 hasLocation W21491033122 @default.
• W2149103312 hasOpenAccess W2149103312 @default.
• W2149103312 hasPrimaryLocation W21491033121 @default.
• W2149103312 hasRelatedWork W1995463208 @default.
• W2149103312 hasRelatedWork W2021968456 @default.
• W2149103312 hasRelatedWork W2026433581 @default.
• W2149103312 hasRelatedWork W2068861579 @default.
• W2149103312 hasRelatedWork W2106376036 @default.
• W2149103312 hasRelatedWork W2407744743 @default.
• W2149103312 hasRelatedWork W2412245334 @default.
• W2149103312 hasRelatedWork W2460088216 @default.
• W2149103312 hasRelatedWork W2471970360 @default.
• W2149103312 hasRelatedWork W2981372661 @default.
• W2149103312 hasVolume "30" @default.
• W2149103312 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2149103312 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2149103312 magId "2149103312" @default.
• W2149103312 workType "article" @default.