BACKGROUND: Cancer survival is related to features of the primary malignancy and concurrent presence of nonmalignant diseases (comorbidities), including weight-related conditions (obesity, weight loss). The Charlson and Elixhauser methods are 2 well-known methods that take comorbidities into account when explaining survival. They differ in both the number and categorization of comorbidities. METHODS: Cancer, comorbidity, and survival data were acquired from inpatient administrative hospital records in 574 colorectal cancer patients. Robust Poisson regression was used to analyze 2- and 3-year survival according to cancer features and comorbidities classified by the Charlson and Elixhauser methods. Data for weight-related conditions (body mass index, weight loss) and performance status were acquired upon a new patient visit to the regional cancer center. Discrimination was assessed with the concordance (c) statistic. RESULTS: A base model (age, sex, stage) had excellent discrimination (c-statistic, 0.824 [2-year survival] and 0.827 [3-year survival]). The addition of Charlson comorbidities did not outperform the base model (c-statistic, 0.831 [2-year survival] and 0.833 [3-year survival]). Elixhauser comorbidities added higher discrimination compared with the base model, both in stage and overall (c-statistic, 0.852 [2-year survival] and 0.854 [3-year survival]; P < .01). The greatest increase in the c-statistic contributed by the addition of the Elixhauser comorbidities occurred in stage II patients (increased from 0.683 to 0.838). Overall, the Elixhauser comorbidities outperformed the Charlson comorbidities (P < .05). The use of self-reported weight and performance status data significantly increased discrimination by the Elixhauser method in 2-year but not 3-year survival. CONCLUSIONS: The Elixhauser method is a superior comorbidity risk-adjustment model for colorectal cancer survival prediction.
BACKGROUND:Cancer survival is related to features of the primary malignancy and concurrent presence of nonmalignant diseases (comorbidities), including weight-related conditions (obesity, weight loss). The Charlson and Elixhauser methods are 2 well-known methods that take comorbidities into account when explaining survival. They differ in both the number and categorization of comorbidities. METHODS:Cancer, comorbidity, and survival data were acquired from inpatient administrative hospital records in 574 colorectal cancerpatients. Robust Poisson regression was used to analyze 2- and 3-year survival according to cancer features and comorbidities classified by the Charlson and Elixhauser methods. Data for weight-related conditions (body mass index, weight loss) and performance status were acquired upon a new patient visit to the regional cancer center. Discrimination was assessed with the concordance (c) statistic. RESULTS: A base model (age, sex, stage) had excellent discrimination (c-statistic, 0.824 [2-year survival] and 0.827 [3-year survival]). The addition of Charlson comorbidities did not outperform the base model (c-statistic, 0.831 [2-year survival] and 0.833 [3-year survival]). Elixhauser comorbidities added higher discrimination compared with the base model, both in stage and overall (c-statistic, 0.852 [2-year survival] and 0.854 [3-year survival]; P < .01). The greatest increase in the c-statistic contributed by the addition of the Elixhauser comorbidities occurred in stage II patients (increased from 0.683 to 0.838). Overall, the Elixhauser comorbidities outperformed the Charlson comorbidities (P < .05). The use of self-reported weight and performance status data significantly increased discrimination by the Elixhauser method in 2-year but not 3-year survival. CONCLUSIONS: The Elixhauser method is a superior comorbidity risk-adjustment model for colorectal cancer survival prediction.
Authors: Alycia A Bristol; Kimberly A Convery; Victor Sotelo; Catherine E Schneider; Shih-Yin Lin; Jason Fletcher; Randall Rupper; James E Galvin; Abraham A Brody Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-04-19 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Stefano Marventano; Giuseppe Grosso; Antonio Mistretta; Marta Bogusz-Czerniewicz; Roberta Ferranti; Francesca Nolfo; Gabriele Giorgianni; Stefania Rametta; Filippo Drago; Francesco Basile; Antonio Biondi Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2014-07-27 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Paul Riviere; Christopher Tokeshi; Jiayi Hou; Vinit Nalawade; Reith Sarkar; Anthony J Paravati; Melody Schiaffino; Brent Rose; Ronghui Xu; James D Murphy Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2019-03
Authors: Hemalkumar B Mehta; Sneha D Sura; Deepak Adhikari; Clark R Andersen; Stephen B Williams; Anthony J Senagore; Yong-Fang Kuo; James S Goodwin Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Matthew E Nielsen; Katherine Mallin; Mark A Weaver; Bryan Palis; Andrew Stewart; David P Winchester; Matthew I Milowsky Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-05-22 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Nicolas R Thompson; Youran Fan; Jarrod E Dalton; Lara Jehi; Benjamin P Rosenbaum; Sumeet Vadera; Sandra D Griffith Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 2.983