Literature DB >> 24302538

A comparison of relative and cause-specific survival by cancer site, age and time since diagnosis.

Katrine Damgaard Skyrud1, Freddie Bray, Bjørn Møller.   

Abstract

Relative survival (RS) estimates are widely used by cancer registries, mainly because they do not rely on the well-documented deficiencies of cause of death information. The aim of our study was to compare 5-year cause-specific survival (CSS) estimates and 5-year RS estimates for different cancer sites by age and time since diagnosis, and discuss possible reasons for observed differences. Using data from the Cancer Registry of Norway, we identified 200,008 patients diagnosed with cancer at one of the 48 sites included in this analysis during the period 1996-2005, and followed them up until the end of 2010. CSS estimates were calculated (i) considering cause of death to be the cancer that was originally diagnosed and (ii) considering the cause of death to be a cancer within the same organ system. For most cancer sites the difference between CSS and RS estimates was small (<5%). The greatest differences were seen for rarer cancers such as mediastinum and Kaposi sarcoma. Including deaths from the same organ system in the calculation of CSS further reduced the differences for many sites. For younger age groups and shorter time since diagnosis, RS and CSS estimates tended to be similar, whereas CSS estimates tended to be lower than RS estimates with longer time since diagnosis in the oldest age groups. When compared to RS estimates CSS estimates were reliable for most of the cancer sites included in our analysis. There are, however, some exceptions where CSS estimates may not be recommended, including for rarer cancers and for patients aged 85 and above.
© 2013 UICC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cancer; cause of death; cause-specific survival; life tables; relative survival

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24302538     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.28645

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  14 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

2.  Estimation of net survival for cancer patients: Relative survival setting more robust to some assumption violations than cause-specific setting, a sensitivity analysis on empirical data.

Authors:  Robin Schaffar; Bernard Rachet; Aurélien Belot; Laura M Woods
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2016-12-24       Impact factor: 9.162

3.  Breast cancer incidence and survival in Scotland by socio-economic deprivation and tumour subtype.

Authors:  Ines Mesa-Eguiagaray; Sarah H Wild; Sheila M Bird; Linda J Williams; David H Brewster; Peter S Hall; Jonine D Figueroa
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 4.624

4.  Is time from diagnosis to radical prostatectomy associated with oncological outcomes?

Authors:  Kirsti Aas; Sophie Dorothea Fosså; Rune Kvåle; Bjørn Møller; Tor Åge Myklebust; Ljiljana Vlatkovic; Stig Müller; Viktor Berge
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-11-27       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Naringenin inhibits migration of breast cancer cells via inflammatory and apoptosis cell signaling pathways.

Authors:  Zhenjiang Zhao; Guoguo Jin; Yinghui Ge; Zhiping Guo
Journal:  Inflammopharmacology       Date:  2019-04-02       Impact factor: 5.093

Review 6.  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

7.  Nomograms for predicting survival outcomes in patients with primary tracheal tumors: a large population-based analysis.

Authors:  Junmiao Wen; Di Liu; Xinyan Xu; Donglai Chen; Yongbing Chen; Liang Sun; Jiayan Chen; Min Fan
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 3.989

8.  Choice of relative or cause-specific approach to cancer survival analysis impacts estimates differentially by cancer type, population, and application: evidence from a Canadian population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Diana R Withrow; Jason D Pole; E Diane Nishri; Michael Tjepkema; Loraine D Marrett
Journal:  Popul Health Metr       Date:  2017-07-03

9.  Geographical, racial and socio-economic variation in life expectancy in the US and their impact on cancer relative survival.

Authors:  Angela B Mariotto; Zhaohui Zou; Christopher J Johnson; Steve Scoppa; Hannah K Weir; Bin Huang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-25       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  A comparison of relative survival and cause-specific survival methods to measure net survival in cancer populations.

Authors:  Nupur Makkar; Quinn T Ostrom; Carol Kruchko; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 4.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.