› Forums › General Melanoma Community › maybe a dumb question
- This topic has 12 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 6 months ago by
Janner.
- Post
-
- August 20, 2014 at 12:55 pm
http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/early/2012/03/06/JCO.2011.38.8561.full.pdf
Table 1. How can the 20 year survival of any group of people age 80-89 possibly be 95.8%? That makes no sense from an age standpoint.
- Replies
-
-
- August 20, 2014 at 1:10 pm
I didn't have time to reread the article, but I think you're mistaken. Here's the details on the ages which are 15-89 for this study.
Removed: along with those age younger than 15 and those age 90 years
at diagnosis. Therefore, included in this analysis were
26,736 people diagnosed between 1982 and 2006 in the Queensland
population with a histologically confirmed single primary invasive
cutaneous melanoma 1.00 mm thick. Their average age was 52.7
years (median, 53 years; range, 15 to 89 years), with an average age of
54.9 years among males and 50.2 years among females. Male-to-
female incidence ratio was 1.2:1. By December 31, 2007, 4,455 (17%)
had died, of whom 592 (2.2% of the cohort) died from melanoma. -
- August 20, 2014 at 1:10 pm
I didn't have time to reread the article, but I think you're mistaken. Here's the details on the ages which are 15-89 for this study.
Removed: along with those age younger than 15 and those age 90 years
at diagnosis. Therefore, included in this analysis were
26,736 people diagnosed between 1982 and 2006 in the Queensland
population with a histologically confirmed single primary invasive
cutaneous melanoma 1.00 mm thick. Their average age was 52.7
years (median, 53 years; range, 15 to 89 years), with an average age of
54.9 years among males and 50.2 years among females. Male-to-
female incidence ratio was 1.2:1. By December 31, 2007, 4,455 (17%)
had died, of whom 592 (2.2% of the cohort) died from melanoma. -
- August 20, 2014 at 1:10 pm
I didn't have time to reread the article, but I think you're mistaken. Here's the details on the ages which are 15-89 for this study.
Removed: along with those age younger than 15 and those age 90 years
at diagnosis. Therefore, included in this analysis were
26,736 people diagnosed between 1982 and 2006 in the Queensland
population with a histologically confirmed single primary invasive
cutaneous melanoma 1.00 mm thick. Their average age was 52.7
years (median, 53 years; range, 15 to 89 years), with an average age of
54.9 years among males and 50.2 years among females. Male-to-
female incidence ratio was 1.2:1. By December 31, 2007, 4,455 (17%)
had died, of whom 592 (2.2% of the cohort) died from melanoma.-
- August 20, 2014 at 1:28 pm
the table seems to be saying the 20-year survival is 95.8% for the 80-89 age group.
Population-Based 20-Year Survival From Thin Melanoma
Table 1. Cause-Specific Survival Estimates by Years After Diagnosis and Prognostic Factors (1982-2006)
Survival
Age Group No. of Patients 5-Year 10-Year 15-Year 20-Year
80-89 1,397 98.2 95.8 95.8 95.8
-
- August 20, 2014 at 1:28 pm
the table seems to be saying the 20-year survival is 95.8% for the 80-89 age group.
Population-Based 20-Year Survival From Thin Melanoma
Table 1. Cause-Specific Survival Estimates by Years After Diagnosis and Prognostic Factors (1982-2006)
Survival
Age Group No. of Patients 5-Year 10-Year 15-Year 20-Year
80-89 1,397 98.2 95.8 95.8 95.8
-
- August 20, 2014 at 1:28 pm
the table seems to be saying the 20-year survival is 95.8% for the 80-89 age group.
Population-Based 20-Year Survival From Thin Melanoma
Table 1. Cause-Specific Survival Estimates by Years After Diagnosis and Prognostic Factors (1982-2006)
Survival
Age Group No. of Patients 5-Year 10-Year 15-Year 20-Year
80-89 1,397 98.2 95.8 95.8 95.8
-
- August 20, 2014 at 2:00 pm
I see the word "Estimates" in the table description. Since the 10, 15 and 20 years numbers are all the same, I'd say they were "estimates". Basically, if that person had been 60 at diagnosis instead of 80, based on prognostic factors they would expect a 95.8% survival rate.
-
- August 20, 2014 at 2:00 pm
I see the word "Estimates" in the table description. Since the 10, 15 and 20 years numbers are all the same, I'd say they were "estimates". Basically, if that person had been 60 at diagnosis instead of 80, based on prognostic factors they would expect a 95.8% survival rate.
-
- August 20, 2014 at 2:00 pm
I see the word "Estimates" in the table description. Since the 10, 15 and 20 years numbers are all the same, I'd say they were "estimates". Basically, if that person had been 60 at diagnosis instead of 80, based on prognostic factors they would expect a 95.8% survival rate.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.