Literature DB >> 21924892

Estimating expected survival probabilities for relative survival analysis--exploring the impact of including cancer patient mortality in the calculations.

Mats Talbäck1, Paul W Dickman.   

Abstract

Relative survival is a widely used measure of cancer patient survival, defined as the observed survival of the cancer patients divided by the expected survival of a comparable group from the general population, free from the cancer under study. In practise, expected survival is usually calculated from general population life tables. Such estimates are known to be biased since they also include mortality from the cancer patients, but the bias is ignored since mortality among individuals with a specific cancer is thought to constitute only a small proportion of total mortality. Using the computerised population registers that exist in Sweden we had the unique opportunity to calculate expected survival both including and excluding individuals with cancer, and thereby estimate the size of the bias arising from using general population estimates. We also evaluated a simple method to adjust expected survival probabilities estimated from general population statistics as an aid to researchers who do not have access to computerised registers of the entire national population. Our results show that the bias is sufficiently small to be ignorable for most applications, notably for cancers with high or low mortality and for younger age groups (<60 years). However, the bias in relative survival estimates can be greater than 1 percent unit for older age groups for common cancers and even larger for all sites combined. For example, the bias in 10-year relative survival for men aged 75+ diagnosed with prostate cancer was 2.6 percent units, which we think is of sufficient magnitude to warrant adjustment.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21924892     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.08.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  12 in total

1.  Differences in Cancer Survival with Relative versus Cause-Specific Approaches: An Update Using More Accurate Life Tables.

Authors:  Gonçalo Forjaz de Lacerda; Nadia Howlader; Angela B Mariotto
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2019-06-20       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 2.  Survival analysis in hematologic malignancies: recommendations for clinicians.

Authors:  Julio Delgado; Arturo Pereira; Neus Villamor; Armando López-Guillermo; Ciril Rozman
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 9.941

3.  Cancer and aging: Epidemiology and methodological challenges.

Authors:  Jacob K Pedersen; Gerda Engholm; Axel Skytthe; Kaare Christensen
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 4.089

4.  Should relative survival be used with lung cancer data?

Authors:  S R Hinchliffe; M J Rutherford; M J Crowther; C P Nelson; P C Lambert
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-05-03       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 5.  Critical Points for Interpreting Patients' Survival Rate Using Cancer Registries: A Literature Review.

Authors:  Ayako Okuyama; Akiko Shibata; Hiroshi Nishimoto
Journal:  J Epidemiol       Date:  2017-10-28       Impact factor: 3.211

6.  Reporting net survival in populations: a sensitivity analysis in lung cancer demonstrates the differential implications of reporting relative survival and cause-specific survival.

Authors:  Kay See Tan; Takashi Eguchi; Prasad S Adusumilli
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2019-09-02       Impact factor: 4.790

7.  Errors in determination of net survival: cause-specific and relative survival settings.

Authors:  Chloe J Bright; Adam R Brentnall; Kate Wooldrage; Jonathon Myles; Peter Sasieni; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Direct modeling of the crude probability of cancer death and the number of life years lost due to cancer without the need of cause of death: a pseudo-observation approach in the relative survival setting.

Authors:  Dimitra-Kleio Kipourou; Maja Pohar Perme; Bernard Rachet; Aurelien Belot
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 5.899

9.  Educational attainment and differences in relative survival after acute myocardial infarction in Norway: a registry-based population study.

Authors:  Søren Toksvig Klitkou; Knut R Wangen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-08-28       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Sex Differences in Treatments, Relative Survival, and Excess Mortality Following Acute Myocardial Infarction: National Cohort Study Using the SWEDEHEART Registry.

Authors:  Oras A Alabas; Chris P Gale; Marlous Hall; Mark J Rutherford; Karolina Szummer; Sofia Sederholm Lawesson; Joakim Alfredsson; Bertil Lindahl; Tomas Jernberg
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 6.106

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.