Diana Sarfati1, Jason Gurney2, James Stanley2, Clare Salmond3, Peter Crampton4, Elizabeth Dennett5, Jonathan Koea6, Neil Pearce7. 1. Department of Public Health, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, PO Box 7343, Wellington South, Wellington 6022, New Zealand. Electronic address: diana.sarfati@otago.ac.nz. 2. Department of Public Health, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, PO Box 7343, Wellington South, Wellington 6022, New Zealand. 3. Retired. 4. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand. 5. Department of Surgery and Anaesthesia, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, PO Box 7343, Wellington South, Wellington 6022, New Zealand. 6. Department of Surgery, North Shore Hospital, Waitemata District Health Board, Private Bag 93-503 Takapuna, Auckland 0740, New Zealand. 7. Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University, PO Box 756, Wellington 6022, New Zealand; Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppell Street, Bloomsbury, London WC1E7HT, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and validate administrative data-based comorbidity indices for a range of cancer types that included all relevant concomitant conditions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: Patients diagnosed with colorectal, breast, gynecological, upper gastrointestinal, or urological cancers identified from the National Cancer Registry between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2008 for the development cohort (n=14,096) and July 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009 for the validation cohort (n=11,014) were identified. A total of 50 conditions were identified using hospital discharge data before cancer diagnosis. Five site-specific indices and a combined site index were developed, with conditions weighted according to their log hazard ratios from age- and stage-adjusted Cox regression models with noncancer death as the outcome. We compared the performance of these indices (the C3 indices) with the Charlson and National Cancer Institute (NCI) comorbidity indices. RESULTS: The correlation between the Charlson and C3 index scores ranged between 0.61 and 0.78. The C3 index outperformed the Charlson and NCI indices for all sites combined, colorectal, and upper gastrointestinal cancer, performing similarly for urological, breast, and gynecological cancers. CONCLUSION: The C3 indices provide a valid alternative to measuring comorbidity in cancer populations, in some cases providing a modest improvement over other indices.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and validate administrative data-based comorbidity indices for a range of cancer types that included all relevant concomitant conditions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: Patients diagnosed with colorectal, breast, gynecological, upper gastrointestinal, or urological cancers identified from the National Cancer Registry between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2008 for the development cohort (n=14,096) and July 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009 for the validation cohort (n=11,014) were identified. A total of 50 conditions were identified using hospital discharge data before cancer diagnosis. Five site-specific indices and a combined site index were developed, with conditions weighted according to their log hazard ratios from age- and stage-adjusted Cox regression models with noncancer death as the outcome. We compared the performance of these indices (the C3 indices) with the Charlson and National Cancer Institute (NCI) comorbidity indices. RESULTS: The correlation between the Charlson and C3 index scores ranged between 0.61 and 0.78. The C3 index outperformed the Charlson and NCI indices for all sites combined, colorectal, and upper gastrointestinal cancer, performing similarly for urological, breast, and gynecological cancers. CONCLUSION: The C3 indices provide a valid alternative to measuring comorbidity in cancer populations, in some cases providing a modest improvement over other indices.
Authors: Rebecca J Birch; Amy Downing; Paul J Finan; Simon Howell; Ramzi A Ajjan; Eva J A Morris Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-11-03 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Sandar Tin Tin; J Mark Elwood; Ross Lawrenson; Ian Campbell; Vernon Harvey; Sanjeewa Seneviratne Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mohammad Mohammadi; Yang Cao; Ingrid Glimelius; Matteo Bottai; Sandra Eloranta; Karin E Smedby Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-11-05 Impact factor: 4.430