Survival rates of familial and sporadic prostate cancer patients.

AIM: To compare cancer-specific survival rates for familial and sporadic prostate cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Gleason score and age at diagnosis of familial group and sporadic group were compared by χ(2) and t-test. Cancer-specific survival rates were analyzed by the Kaplan - Meier method and compared by log-rank test. Statistically significant level was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Among 1175 prostate cancer patients, familial group consisted of 215 (18.3%) patients, the sporadic group consisted of 960 (81.7%) patients. The familial group patient's mean age at diagnosis (58.9 years old, 95% confidence interval (CI) 57.8-60.1) was significantly younger than that of sporadic group patients (67.2 years old, 95% CI 66.7-67.6) (p < 0.0001). Comparing Gleason score between familial group and sporadic group revealed no statistically significant difference. The analysis showed that 92% (95% CI 0.88-0.97) of familial group patients had a 10-year cancer-specific survival rates, which was a significantly better outcome than that of sporadic group with 69% (95% CI 0.60-0.78) 10-year cancer-specific survival rates (p = 0.0237). CONCLUSION: The study data demonstrate statistically significant difference between familial group and sporadic group concerning age and cancer-specific survival rates, but not Gleason score.

Glycaemic control of Type 1 diabetes in clinical practice early in the 21st century: an international comparison.

AIMS: Improving glycaemic control in people with Type 1 diabetes is known to reduce complications. Our aim was to compare glycaemic control among people with Type 1 diabetes using data gathered in regional or national registries. METHODS: Data were obtained for children and/or adults with Type 1 diabetes from the following countries (or regions): Western Australia, Austria, Denmark, England, Champagne-Ardenne (France), Germany, Epirus, Thessaly and Thessaloniki (Greece), Galway (Ireland), several Italian regions, Latvia, Rotterdam (The Netherlands), Otago (New Zealand), Norway, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, Volyn (Ukraine), USA and Wales) from population or clinic-based registries. The sample size with available data varied from 355 to 173 880. Proportions with HbA1c < 58 mmol/mol (< 7.5%) and ≥ 75 mmol/mol (≥ 9.0%) were compared by age and sex. RESULTS: Data were available for 324 501 people. The proportions with HbA1c 58 mmol/mol (< 7.5%) varied from 15.7% to 46.4% among 44 058 people aged < 15 years, from 8.9% to 49.5% among 50 766 people aged 15-24 years and from 20.5% to 53.6% among 229 677 people aged ≥ 25 years. Sex differences in glycaemic control were small. Proportions of people using insulin pumps varied between the 12 sources with data available. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that there are substantial variations in glycaemic control among people with Type 1 diabetes between the data sources and that there is room for improvement in all populations, especially in young adults.