BACKGROUND: Providing up-to-date estimates of cancer patient survival rates is an important task of cancer registries. A few years ago, a new method of survival analysis, denoted period analysis, was proposed to enhance the recency of long-term survival estimates. The aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive empirical evaluation of the use of this method. METHODS: Using data from the nationwide Finnish Cancer Registry, we compare 5-year and 10-year relative survival rates of 371 849 patients diagnosed with one of the 16 most common forms of cancer in Finland at various time intervals between 1953 and 1992 with the most up-to-date estimates of 5-year or 10-year relative survival that might have been obtained in those time intervals by traditional methods of survival analysis and by period analysis of survival. RESULTS: Survival rates strongly increased over time for most forms of cancer. For these cancers, traditional estimates of 5- and 10-year survival rates would have severely lagged behind the survival rates later observed for newly diagnosed patients, and period analysis would consistently have provided much more up-to-date estimates of survival rates. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that period analysis should be implemented as a standard tool for providing up-to-date estimates of long-term survival rates by cancer registries.
BACKGROUND: Providing up-to-date estimates of cancerpatient survival rates is an important task of cancer registries. A few years ago, a new method of survival analysis, denoted period analysis, was proposed to enhance the recency of long-term survival estimates. The aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive empirical evaluation of the use of this method. METHODS: Using data from the nationwide Finnish Cancer Registry, we compare 5-year and 10-year relative survival rates of 371 849 patients diagnosed with one of the 16 most common forms of cancer in Finland at various time intervals between 1953 and 1992 with the most up-to-date estimates of 5-year or 10-year relative survival that might have been obtained in those time intervals by traditional methods of survival analysis and by period analysis of survival. RESULTS: Survival rates strongly increased over time for most forms of cancer. For these cancers, traditional estimates of 5- and 10-year survival rates would have severely lagged behind the survival rates later observed for newly diagnosed patients, and period analysis would consistently have provided much more up-to-date estimates of survival rates. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that period analysis should be implemented as a standard tool for providing up-to-date estimates of long-term survival rates by cancer registries.
Authors: Rafael Marcos-Gragera; Claudia Allemani; Carmen Tereanu; Roberta De Angelis; Riccardo Capocaccia; Marc Maynadie; Stefano Luminari; Stefano Ferretti; Tom Børge Johannesen; Risto Sankila; Marja-Liisa Karjalainen-Lindsberg; Arianna Simonetti; Maria Carmen Martos; Martine Raphaël; Pilar Giraldo; Milena Sant Journal: Haematologica Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Maria Theresa Redaniel; Adriano Laudico; Maria Rica Mirasol-Lumague; Adam Gondos; Gemma Uy; Hermann Brenner Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2010-03-16 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: O Majek; A Gondos; L Jansen; K Emrich; B Holleczek; A Katalinic; A Nennecke; A Eberle; H Brenner Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Maria Theresa M Redaniel; Adriano Laudico; Maria Rica Mirasol-Lumague; Adam Gondos; Gemma Leonora Uy; Jean Ann Toral; Doris Benavides; Hermann Brenner Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2009-09-24 Impact factor: 4.430