BACKGROUND: A previous observational study reported that endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is associated with improved survival in older patients with pancreatic cancer. The objective of this study was to reevaluate this association using different statistical methods to control for confounding and selection bias. METHODS: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data (1992-2007) was used to identify patients with locoregional pancreatic cancer. Two-year survival in patients who did and did not receive EUS was compared by using standard Cox proportional hazards models, propensity score methodology, and instrumental variable analysis. RESULTS: EUS was associated with improved survival in both unadjusted (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.63-0.72) and standard regression analyses (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.73-0.84) which controlled for age, sex, race, marital status, tumor stage, SEER region, Charlson comorbidity, year of diagnosis, education, preoperative biliary stenting, chemotherapy, radiation, and pancreatic resection. Propensity score adjustment, matching, and stratification did not attenuate this survival benefit. In an instrumental variable analysis, the survival benefit was no longer observed (HR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.73-1.36). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the need to exercise caution in using administrative data to infer causal mortality benefits with diagnostic and/or treatment interventions in cancer research.
BACKGROUND: A previous observational study reported that endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is associated with improved survival in older patients with pancreatic cancer. The objective of this study was to reevaluate this association using different statistical methods to control for confounding and selection bias. METHODS: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data (1992-2007) was used to identify patients with locoregional pancreatic cancer. Two-year survival in patients who did and did not receive EUS was compared by using standard Cox proportional hazards models, propensity score methodology, and instrumental variable analysis. RESULTS: EUS was associated with improved survival in both unadjusted (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.63-0.72) and standard regression analyses (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.73-0.84) which controlled for age, sex, race, marital status, tumor stage, SEER region, Charlson comorbidity, year of diagnosis, education, preoperative biliary stenting, chemotherapy, radiation, and pancreatic resection. Propensity score adjustment, matching, and stratification did not attenuate this survival benefit. In an instrumental variable analysis, the survival benefit was no longer observed (HR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.73-1.36). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the need to exercise caution in using administrative data to infer causal mortality benefits with diagnostic and/or treatment interventions in cancer research.
Authors: Edwin P Martens; Wiebe R Pestman; Anthonius de Boer; Svetlana V Belitser; Olaf H Klungel Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Thérèse A Stukel; Elliott S Fisher; David E Wennberg; David A Alter; Daniel J Gottlieb; Marian J Vermeulen Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-01-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jaclyn L F Bosco; Rebecca A Silliman; Soe Soe Thwin; Ann M Geiger; Diana S M Buist; Marianne N Prout; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Reina Haque; Feifei Wei; Timothy L Lash Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-05-19 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Sharon H Giordano; Yong-Fang Kuo; Zhigang Duan; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Jean Freeman; James S Goodwin Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Grace L Lu-Yao; Peter C Albertsen; Dirk F Moore; Weichung Shih; Yong Lin; Robert S DiPaola; Siu-Long Yao Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-07-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ryan K Schmocker; David J Vanness; Caprice C Greenberg; Jeff A Havlena; Noelle K LoConte; Jennifer M Weiss; Heather B Neuman; Glen Leverson; Maureen A Smith; Emily R Winslow Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2017-02-23 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Bradley D McDowell; Cole G Chapman; Brian J Smith; Anna M Button; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; James J Mezhir Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Sheila D Rustgi; Haley M Zylberberg; Sunil Amin; Anne Aronson; Satish Nagula; Christopher J DiMaio; Nikhil A Kumta; Aimee L Lucas Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2022-01-14