ISSN: 2451-0629
Archives of Medical Science - Atherosclerotic Diseases
Current volume Archive About the journal Editorial board Abstracting and indexing Contact Instructions for authors Ethical standards and procedures
Official journal of the International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP)
CALL FOR PAPERS
1/2019
vol. 4
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
Clinical research

Link between prostate cancer diagnosis and stroke in the United States during 2007–2017

Irene Rethemiotaki
,
Andrew Rethemiotakis

Arch Med Sci Atheroscler Dis 2019; 4: e94–e102
Online publish date: 2019/05/23
Article file
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
 

Introduction

The incidence of cancer is rapidly growing worldwide. This is due to both the aging and growth of the population, as well as changes in the prevalence of the main risk factors for cancer, several of which are associated with socioeconomic development [1, 2]. Prostate cancer ranks not only as the second most frequently diagnosed cancer, but also the fifth leading cause of cancer death in men, with an estimated 1.3 million new cases and 359,000 deaths worldwide in 2018 [3].

Little is known about prostate cancer aetiology, while important risk factors are age, race, positive family history of prostate cancer, and diet [4]. More specifically, 66 years considered is the average age of onset of this disease, while African-American is the race with the most frequent incidence of prostate cancer [5, 6]. Low socio-economic status is associated with increased incidence and mortality from cancer [7]. However, men with a high socioeconomic status (SES) have a higher incidence of prostate cancer than men with low SES [813]. This is probably due to different behaviour in the search for medical care [9, 10, 1416]. However, prostate cancer mortality is not similar, and prostate cancer survival is poorer in men with lower SES [1719]. Men with low SES may have a lower level of literacy and health awareness and may perceive cancer screening as more threatening, more difficult, and less beneficial [20]. In order to reduce cancer-preventable deaths, it is therefore important to examine factors related to non-attendance in prostate screening.

Prior studies have found increased risk of stroke in patients with cancer. More specifically, it has been found, according to autopsy data, that 15% of patients diagnosed with cancer have pathological evidence of cerebrovascular disease upon death [21], and several studies have demonstrated that stroke is common in patients with cancer [2224]. The underlying mechanisms of stroke are related to cancer-mediated hypercoagulability or complications of oncological treatments [21, 22, 25, 26].

This work studies prostate cancer and stroke in the United States in the years 2007–2017 in order to find statistically significant predictors of cancer and a possible link between prostate cancer and stroke.

Material and methods

The data used in this work come from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) dataset [27] and cover the period 2007–2017. The target population for the NHIS is the civilian noninstitutionalized population of the United States. NHIS data are collected through personal household interviews. The main objective of the NHIS is to monitor the health of the U.S. population through the collection and analysis of data on a broad range of health topics. The number of adult patients with prostate cancer examined was 26,591.

Moreover, in the geographic classification of the U.S. population, states are grouped into four regions used by the U.S. Census Bureau:

  • Northeast: Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

  • Midwest: Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska.

  • South: Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas.

  • West: Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, and Hawaii.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Statistical analysis

The statistical methods used to extract the results of this work are the χ2 test for categorical and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for continues variables, to check the statistical significance of prostate cancer in relation to socio-economic characteristics of patients, such as age, race, origin, education, family income, poverty status, health insurance coverage, place of residence, and region. Factors that determine the prevalence of cancer were assessed by using multiple logistic regression analysis. To assess the predictors of cancer, we used data in patients with a new diagnosis of cancer compared to a matched cohort of patients without cancer. More specifically, the control group consisted of target population without cancer with the same socioeconomic characteristics as the patient group. The data were weighted before being analysed. Predictors were represented using the OR and 95% confidence intervals, and p < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. The study was carried out using the IBMSPSS 25 software package for Windows.

Results

To check the zero hypothesis that the mean of the patients in the United States with prostate cancer did not differ according to their socio-economic characteristics, the χ2 test and One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used. As shown in Table I, there was a statistically significant difference in the number of malignant neoplasms of the prostate in relation to age, and this occurred mainly in the age group of 75 years and over (41.5%), while the most common origin and race was Black or African American (70.4%), not Hispanic or Latino (48.7%). The education that was found to be statistically significant was “bachelor’s degree or higher” (36.3%). The employment status which was seen to statistically significant was “not employed but has worked previously” (57%). The poverty status that was seen to be statistically significant was “not poor” (80.3%), with a family income of $35.000 or more (40.9%). The health insurance coverage that was statistically significant in both age groups (under 65 years (81.4%) and 65 years and over (58.8%)) was private. In addition, the majority of prostate cancer patients had “married” marital status (72.9%). Finally, the region with the most frequent occurrence of prostate cancer was south (37.8%), with a population size of one million or more (48.9%).

Table I

Socio-economic characteristics of prostate cancer patients: United States 2007–2017 (χ2 and one-way ANOVA test)

CharacteristicsNumber of patientsPercentagesP-value
Gender:< 0.001
 Male26,591100
 Female00
Age:< 0.001
 18–44100.0
 45–645,79021.8
 65–749,73636.7
 75 and over11,00841.5
Race:0.001
 White3,93219.7
 Black or African American14,03270.4
 Asian1,9719.9
Origin:< 0.001
 Hispanic or Latino1,5543.0
 Mexican or Mexican American7531.5
 Not Hispanic or Latino25,03748.7
 White, single race20,77040.4
 Black or African American, single race3,3296.5
Education:< 0.001
 Less than a high school diploma3,84114.5
 High school diploma6,67825.3
 Some college6,31723.9
 Bachelor’s degree or higher9,61136.3
Employment:< 0.001
 Employed:4,17521.5
  Full-time15.3
  Part-time5.6
 Unemployed but has worked previously11,09357
 Unemployed and has never worked1140.6
Family income:< 0.001
 Less than $35,0007,31718.3
 $35,000 or more16,38240.9
 $35,000–$49,9993,6659.1
 $50,000–$74,9994,51811.3
 $75,000–$99,9992,7716.9
 $100,000 or more5,42613.5
Poverty status:< 0.001
 Poor1,2615.2
 Near poor3,47314.5
 Not poor19,29180.3
Health insurance coverage:< 0.001
 Under 65:
  Private4,52581.4
  Medicaid3135.6
  Other coverage62011.2
  Uninsured1021.8
 65 and over:< 0.001
  Private11,12658.8
  Medicare and Medicaid6763.6
  Medicare only5,00526.4
  Other coverage2,11911.2
Marital status:< 0.001
 Married19,34072.9
 Widowed2,88210.9
 Divorced or separated2,5839.7
 Never married1,0694.0
 Living with a partner6512.5
Place of residence:< 0.001
 MSA (Metropolitan statistical area):
  Large MSA (population size 1 million or more)13,00148.9
  Small MSA (less than 1 million)8,78833.1
  Not in MSA4,80018.1
 Region:< 0.001
  Northeast5,10119.2
  Midwest6,09222.9
  South10,06137.8
  West5,33720.1

Table II shows the multiple logistic regression analysis and odds ratios in order to find predictors for the occurrence of prostate cancer.

Table II

Socio-economic characteristics of prostate cancer patients: United States 2007–2017. Statistically significant predictors of prostate cancer in the US using multivariate logistic regression

CharacteristicsPatientsControlsOdds ratio (95% CI)P-value
Age:< 0.001
 18–44101,227,9590.0 (0.9–1.0)
 45–645,790885,2880.11 (0.1–0.11)
 65–749,736253,6720.66 (0.64–0.67)
 75 and over11,008189,5021.0 (ref)
Race:< 0.001
 White3,9322,058,7490.12 (0.12–0.13)
 Black or African American14,032298,2083.1 (3.1–3.4)
 Asian1,971136,6931.0 (ref)
Origin:< 0.001
 Hispanic or Latino1,554378,2280.36 (0.34–0.38)
 Mexican or Mexican American753232,3780.28 (0.26–0.31)
 Not Hispanic or Latino25,0372,178,1451.0 (0.9–1.0)
 White single race20,7701,697,6111.1 (1.0–1.1)
 Black or African American, single race3,329296,3031.0 (ref)
Education:< 0.001
 Less than a high school diploma3,841301,1300.93 (0.9–0.97)
 High school diploma6,678574,6870.85 (0.82–0.88)
 Some college6,317635,6440.73 (0.7–0.75)
 Bachelor’s degree or higher9,611705,9431.0 (ref)
Employment:< 0.001
 Employed4,175882,8193.3 (2.7–4.0)
 Full-time2,975714,4052.9 (2.4–3.5)
 Part-time1,092155,7594.9 (4.0–6.0)
 Unemployed but has worked previously11,093466,61416.7 (13.9–20.1)
 Unemployed and has never worked11480,4721.0 (ref)
Family income:< 0.001
 Less than $35,0007,317761,7030.98 (0.94–1.0)
 $35,000 or more16,3821,580,0261.05 (1.02–1.1)
 $35,000–$49,9993,665317,0081.2 (1.1–1.2)
 $50,000–$74,9994,518418,6341.1 (1.0–1.1)
 $75,000–$99,9992,771290,9670.97 (0.92–1.0)
 $100,000 or more5,426553,4181.0 (ref)
Poverty status:< 0.001
 Poor1,261306,7230.35 (0.33–0.37)
 Near poor3,473410,5000.7 (0.6–0.7)
 Not poor19,2911,640,6431.0 (ref)
Health insurance coverage:< 0.001
 Under 65:
  Private4,5251,408,43511.8 (9.7–14.4)
  Medicaid313225,5815.1 (4.0–6.3)
  Other coverage62092,45024.0 (20.0–30.4)
  Uninsured102376,0931.0 (ref)
 65 and over:< 0.001
  Private11,126219,6290.68 (0.64–0.7)
  Medicare and Medicaid67630,5120.3 (0.2–0.3)
  Medicare only5,005109,9630.6 (0.5–0.6)
  Other coverage2,11928,4721.0 (ref)
Marital status:< 0.001
 Married19,3401,364,4424.0 (3.7–4.3)
 Widowed2,882151,8925.4 (4.9–5.8)
 Divorced or separated2,583289,0722.5 (2.3–1.7)
 Never married1,069561,3900.5 (0.4–0.6)
 Living with a partner651185,2281.0 (ref)
Place of residence:< 0.001
 MSA (Metropolitan statistical area):
  Large MSA (population size 1 million or more)13,0011,370,2910.77 (0.74–0.8)
  Small MSA (less than 1 million)8,788794,2890.9 (0.8–0.9)
  Not in MSA4,800391,7971.0 (ref)
 Region:< 0.001
  Northeast5,101451,7651.24 (1.1–1.3)
  Midwest6,092588,5151.14 (1.1–1.2)
  South10,061927,8511.19 (1.15–1.23)
  West5,337588,2421.0 (ref)

As shown in Table II, all prognostic factors are statistically significant (p < 0.05). According to multiple logistic regression, the risk of prostate cancer is significantly higher in the age group of 75 years and over (OR = 1.0), Black or African American race (OR = 3.1), and “bachelor’s degree or higher” education status (OR = 1.0). Moreover, those who were not employed but have worked previously have 16 times the risk of developing prostate cancer (OR = 16.7). In addition, the risk of cancer is significantly higher with family income $35,000–$49,999 (OR = 1.2), poverty status “not poor” (OR = 1.0), health insurance coverage “other coverage” in both age groups – under 65 years and 65 years and over (OR = 24.0 and OR = 1.0, respectively). Widowed men have higher risk of developing prostate cancer (OR = 5.4). Finally, the risk of prostate cancer is significantly higher for region “Northeast” (OR = 1.2) and place of residence “not in metropolitan statistical area” (OR = 1.0).

Figure 1 shows the trends in prostate cancer and stroke during the years 2007–2017 in the United States. The incidence of prostate cancer and stroke continued to increase from 2007 to 2017.

Figure 1

Trends in prostate cancer and stroke during the years 2007–2017 in the United States

/f/fulltexts/AMSAD/36752/AMS-AD-4-36752-g001_min.jpg

In order to find a possible link between prostate cancer and stroke, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was also used for stroke patients. As can be seen from Table III, marital status plays a crucial role in the incidence of stroke. Widowed adults have the highest risk for the occurrence of stroke (OR = 6.0). Family income and education are also prognostic risks for stroke. More specifically, family income “less than $35,000” (OR = 4.0) and “less than a high school diploma” education status (OR = 3.7) have four times higher risk for stroke. Finally, adults who were unemployed but had worked previously had two times the risk of stroke (OR = 1.9). Moreover, the risk of stroke was significantly higher with female gender (OR = 1.0), age over 75 years (OR = 1.0), and Black or African American race (OR = 2.4). The risk of stroke is significantly higher with poverty status “near poor” (OR = 2.0), health insurance coverage “other coverage” under 65 years old and “Medicare and Medicaid” over 65 years old (OR = 5.6 and OR = 1.3, respectively). Finally, the risk of stroke is significantly higher with region “south” (OR = 1.32) and place of residence “not in metropolitan statistical area” (OR = 1.0).

Table III

Characteristics of stroke patients: United States 2007–2017. Statistically significant predictors of Stroke in the US using multivariate logistic regression

CharacteristicsPatientsControlsOdds ratio (95% CI)P-value
Gender:< 0.001
 Male33,4391,212,9660.94 (0.93–0.96)
 Female37,7882,512,2791.0 (ref)
Age:< 0.001
 18–446,6701,221,2990.0 (0.04–0.05)
 45–6425,876865,2020.26 (0.25–0.26)
 65–7416,350247,0580.57 (0.56–0.58)
 75 and over20,650179,8601.0 (ref)
Race:< 0.001
 White55,8202,006,8611.8 (1.7–1.9)
 Black or African American11,216301,0242.4 (2.3–2.5)
 Asian2,059136,6051.0 (ref)
Origin:< 0.001
 Hispanic or Latino7,046372,7360.49 (0.48–0.5)
 Mexican or Mexican American4,141228,9900.47 (0.45–0.49)
 Not Hispanic or Latino64,1832,138,9990.78 (0.77–0.8)
 White single race49,4311,668,9500.77 (0.76–0.79)
 Black or African American. single race10,980288,6521.0 (ref)
Education:< 0.001
 Less than a high school diploma17,321287,6503.7 (3.6–3.8)
 High school diploma21,698559,6672.4 (2.3–2.5)
 Some college18,229623,7321.8 (1.7–1.9)
 Bachelor’s degree or higher11,281704,2731.0 (ref)
Employment:< 0.001
 Employed:8,092878,9020.26 (0.25–0.27)
  Full-time5,809711,5710.23 (0.22–0.24)
  Part-time2,048154,8030.38 (0.36–0.4)
 Unemployed but has worked previously30,099447,6081.9 (1.8–2.0)
 Unemployed and has never worked2,70377,8831.0 (ref)
Family income:< 0.001
 Less than $35,00035,167733,8534.0 (3.9–4.1)
 $35,000 or more29,1591,567,2491.58 (1.54–1.6)
 $35,000–$49,9999,434311,2392.6 (2.5–2.7)
 $50,000–$74,9998,885414,2671.8 (1.7–1.9)
 $75,000–$99,9994,352289,3861.28 (1.23–1.33)
 $100,000 or more6,487552,3571.0 (ref)
Poverty status:< 0.001
 Poor11,412296,5721.84 (1.8–1.88)
 Near poor17,036396,9372.0 (2.0–2.1)
 Not poor33,9381,625,9961.0 (ref)
Health insurance coverage:< 0.001
 Under 65:
  Private13,6741,399,2860.9 (0.8–0.9)
  Medicaid9,113216,7813.7 (3.6–3.9)
  Other coverage5,52287,5485.6 (5.4–5.9)
  Uninsured4,132372,0631.0 (ref)
 65 and over:0.000
  Private16,903213,8520.62 (0.6–0.65)
  Medicare and Medicaid4,46526,7231.3 (1.2–1.4)
  Medicare only9,540105,4280.7 (0.68–0.74)
  Other coverage3,42727,1641.0 (ref)
Marital status:< 0.001
 Married34,9461,348,8361.5 (1.4–1.6)
 Widowed14,517140,2576.0 (5.8–6.2)
 Divorced or separated12,491279,1642.6 (2.5–2.7)
 Never married6,068556,3910.6 (0.61–0.66)
 Living with a partner3,128182,7511.0 (ref)
Place of residence:< 0.001
 MSA (Metropolitan statistical area):
  Large MSA (population size 1 million or more)32,8091,350,4830.61 (0.6–0.62)
  Small MSA (less than 1 million)21,500781,5770.7 (0.67–0.7)
  Not in MSA15,148381,4491.0 (ref)
 Region:< 0.001
  Northeast10,867445,9991.08 (1.05–1.1)
  Midwest16,569578,0381.27 (1.24–1.3)
  South27,173910,7391.32 (1.29–1.35)
  West13,083580,4961.0 (ref)

Discussion

Increasing attention should be given to the prognostic factors that had the highest odds ratio. It is noted that the socio-economic characteristic of cancer patients with the highest risk is health insurance coverage, and more specifically it was found that men with “other coverage” had the highest risk of developing prostate cancer (OR = 24.0). Moreover, employment status plays a crucial role in developing this type of cancer. Men who were unemployed but had worked previously had a 16-fold increased risk of developing prostate cancer (OR = 16.7). Finally, marital status is a prognostic risk for this type of cancer, as widowed men were found to have a five-fold higher risk of developing prostate cancer (OR = 5.4).

It is also noteworthy that the socio-economic characteristics of stroke patients with the highest odds ratio were the same as those of prostate cancer patients. Deprivation of work and partner proved to be the primary prognostic risk factor for both stroke and prostate cancer, a fact that implies a possible link between cancer and stroke.

The importance of this study lies in the association of multiple socio-economic variables with cancer and stroke, which reflects the complexity and multidimensional nature of deprivation as well as the various roles of these dimensions during the course of life, which in turn reflects the longest gestation period for both cancer and stroke. More specifically, we found that partner and work deprivation, two determinants in the life of an adult, rapidly increase the risk of cancer as well as stroke. We also found that not only deprivation but also the death of a partner plays a key role in the increased risk of developing these two diseases.

In conclusion, this paper has highlighted that different socioeconomic variables are associated with different cancer risks, while deprivation (of work and partner) proved to be the primary prognostic risk factor for cancer. Moreover, the same factor proved to be the primary prognostic risk factor for stroke as well as for prostate cancer, a fact that implies a possible link between cancer and stroke.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1 

Omran AR , author. The epidemiologic transition. A theory of the epidemiology of population change. Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1971. 49:p. 509–38

2 

Gersten O, Wilmoth JR , authors. The cancer transition in Japan since 1951. Demogr Res. 2002. 7:p. 271–306

3 

Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A , authors. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018. 68:p. 394–424. [published online ahead of print 2018].

4 

Bashir MN , author. Epidemiology of prostate cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015. 16:p. 5137–41

5 

American Cancer Society , author. Facts & ures 2015. 2015. Atlanta, G A: American Cancer Society;

6 

Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. , authors. SEER cancer Statistics Review,1975-2011 (Vintage 2011 Populations). 2014

7 

Mackenbach JP, Stirbu I, Roskam AJR, et al. , authors. Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries. N Engl J Med. 2008. 358:p. 2468–81

8 

Pukkala E, Weiderpass E , authors. Socio-economic differences in incidence rates of cancers of the male genital organs in Finland, 1971-95. Int J Cancer. 2002. 102:p. 643–8

9 

Schwartz KL, Crossley-May H, Vigneau FD, et al. , authors. Race, socioeconomic status and stage at diagnosis for five common malignancies. Cancer Causes Control. 2003. 14:p. 761–6

10 

Gilligan T , author. Social disparities and prostate cancer: mapping the gaps in our knowledge. Cancer Causes Control. 2005. 16:p. 45–53

11 

Cheng I, Witte JS, McClure LA, et al. , authors. Socioeconomic status and prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates among the diverse population of California. Cancer Causes Control. 2009. 20:p. 1431–40

12 

Clegg LX, Reichman ME, Miller BA, et al. , authors. Impact of socioeconomic status on cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis: selected findings from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results: national longitudinal mortality study. Cancer Causes Control. 2009. 20:p. 417–35

13 

Rundle A, Neckerman KM, Sheehan D, et al. , authors. A prospective study of socioeconomic status, prostate cancer screening and incidence among men at high risk for prostate cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 2013. 24:p. 297–303

14 

Eisen SA, Waterman B, Skinner CS, et al. , authors. Sociodemographic and health status characteristics with prostate cancer screening in a national cohort of middle-aged male veterans. Urology. 1999. 53:p. 516–22

15 

Burns R, Walsh B, O’Neill S, et al. , authors. An examination of variations in the uptake of prostate cancer screening within and between the countries of the EU-27. Health Policy. 2012. 108:p. 268–76

16 

Weber MF, Cunich M, Smith DP, et al. , authors. Sociodemographic and health-related predictors of self-reported mammogram, faecal occult blood test and prostate specific antigen test use in a large Australian study. BMC Public Health. 2013. 13:p. 429

17 

Freeman VL, Ricardo AC, Campbell RT, et al. , authors. Association of census tract-level socioeconomic status with disparities in prostate cancer-specific survival. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011. 20:p. 2150–9

18 

Aarts MJ, Koldewijn EL, Poortmans PM, et al. , authors. The impact of socioeconomic status on prostate cancer treatment and survival in the southern Netherlands. Urology. 2013. 81:p. 593–9

19 

Shafique K, Morrison DS , authors. Socio-economic inequalities in survival of patients with prostate cancer: role of age and Gleason grade at diagnosis. PLoS One. 2013. 8:p. e56184

20 

von Wagner C, Good A, Whitaker KL, et al. , authors. Psychosocial determinants of socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening participation: a conceptual framework. Epidemiol Rev. 2011. 33:p. 135–47

21 

Graus F, Rogers LR, Posner JB , authors. Cerebrovascular complications in patients with cancer. Medicine. 1985. 64:p. 16–35

22 

Kim SG, Hong JM, Kim HY, et al. , authors. Ischemic stroke in cancer patients with and without conventional mechanisms: a multicenter study in Korea. Stroke. 2010. 41:p. 798–801

23 

Navi BB, Singer S, Merkler AE, et al. , authors. Recurrent thromboembolic events after ischemic stroke in patients with cancer. Neurology. 2014. 83:p. 26–33

24 

Navi BB, Reiner AS, Kamel H, et al. , authors. Association between incident cancer and subsequent stroke. Ann Neurol. 2015. 77:p. 291–300

25 

Rogers LR , author. Cerebrovascular complications in patients with cancer. Sem Neurol. 2010. 30:p. 311–9

26 

Cestari DM, Weine DM, Panageas KS, et al. , authors. Stroke in patients with cancer: incidence and etiology. Neurology. 2004. 62:p. 2025–30

27 

National Center for Health Statistics , author. Data file documentation, National Health Interview Survey. 2016. Available from: urihttps://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htmhttps://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm .

Copyright: © 2019 Termedia & Banach. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
 
Quick links
© 2019 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe