BACKGROUND: The complement of the cancer mortality to incidence ratio [1-(M/I)] has been suggested as a valid proxy for 5-year relative survival. Whether this suggestion holds true for all types of cancer has not yet been adequately evaluated. METHODS: We used publicly available databases of cancer incidence, cancer mortality and relative survival to correlate relative survival estimates and 1-(M/I) estimates from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the USA and the Netherlands. We visually examined for which tumour sites 5-year relative survival cannot simply be predicted by the 1-(M/I) and evaluated similarities between countries. RESULTS: Country-specific linear regression analyses show that there is no systematic bias in predicting 5-year relative survival by 1-(M/I) in five countries. There is a small but significant systematic underestimation of survival from prognostically poor tumour sites in two countries. Furthermore, the 1-(M/I) overestimates survival from oral cavity and liver cancer with >10% in at least two of the seven countries. By contrast, the proxy underestimates survival from soft tissue, bone, breast, prostate and oesophageal cancer, multiple myeloma and leukaemia with >10% in at least two of the seven countries. CONCLUSION: The 1-(M/I) is a good approximation of the 5-year relative survival for most but not all tumour sites.
BACKGROUND: The complement of the cancer mortality to incidence ratio [1-(M/I)] has been suggested as a valid proxy for 5-year relative survival. Whether this suggestion holds true for all types of cancer has not yet been adequately evaluated. METHODS: We used publicly available databases of cancer incidence, cancer mortality and relative survival to correlate relative survival estimates and 1-(M/I) estimates from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the USA and the Netherlands. We visually examined for which tumour sites 5-year relative survival cannot simply be predicted by the 1-(M/I) and evaluated similarities between countries. RESULTS: Country-specific linear regression analyses show that there is no systematic bias in predicting 5-year relative survival by 1-(M/I) in five countries. There is a small but significant systematic underestimation of survival from prognostically poor tumour sites in two countries. Furthermore, the 1-(M/I) overestimates survival from oral cavity and liver cancer with >10% in at least two of the seven countries. By contrast, the proxy underestimates survival from soft tissue, bone, breast, prostate and oesophageal cancer, multiple myeloma and leukaemia with >10% in at least two of the seven countries. CONCLUSION: The 1-(M/I) is a good approximation of the 5-year relative survival for most but not all tumour sites.
Authors: Sara E Wagner; Deborah M Hurley; James R Hébert; Chrissy McNamara; A Rana Bayakly; John E Vena Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David G Perdue; Donald Haverkamp; Carin Perkins; Christine Makosky Daley; Ellen Provost Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-04-22 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Eduard Vrdoljak; Gyorgy Bodoky; Jacek Jassem; Razvan A Popescu; Jozef Mardiak; Robert Pirker; Tanja Čufer; Semir Bešlija; Alexandru Eniu; Vladimir Todorović; Kateřina Kubáčková; Galia Kurteva; Zorica Tomašević; Agim Sallaku; Snezhana Smichkoska; Žarko Bajić; Branimir I Šikić Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-07-08
Authors: Marc C Smaldone; Brian Egleston; John M Hollingsworth; Brent K Hollenbeck; David C Miller; Todd M Morgan; Simon P Kim; Aseem Malhotra; Elizabeth Handorf; Yu-Ning Wong; Robert G Uzzo; Alexander Kutikov Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Nimzing G Ladep; Shahid A Khan; Mary Me Crossey; Andrew V Thillainayagam; Simon D Taylor-Robinson; Mireille B Toledano Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Miroslav Zavoral; Stepan Suchanek; Ondrej Majek; Premysl Fric; Petra Minarikova; Marek Minarik; Bohumil Seifert; Ladislav Dusek Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-04-14 Impact factor: 5.742