Literature DB >> 25417240

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Cancer Survival Calculator SEER*CSC: validation in a managed care setting.

Eric J Feuer1, Borsika A Rabin1, Zhaohui Zou1, Zhuoqiao Wang1, Xiaoqin Xiong1, Jennifer L Ellis1, John F Steiner1, Laurie Cynkin1, Larissa Nekhlyudov1, Elizabeth Bayliss1, Benjamin F Hankey2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Nomograms for prostate and colorectal cancer are included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Cancer Survival Calculator, under development by the National Cancer Institute. They are based on the National Cancer Institute's SEER data, coupled with Medicare data, to estimate the probabilities of surviving or dying from cancer or from other causes based on a set of patient and tumor characteristics. The nomograms provide estimates of survival that are specific to the characteristics of the tumor, age, race, gender, and the overall health of a patient. These nomograms have been internally validated using the SEER data. In this paper, we externally validate the nomograms using data from Kaiser Permanente Colorado.
METHODS: The SEER Cancer Survival Calculator was externally validated using time-dependent area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve statistics and calibration plots for retrospective cohorts of 1102 prostate cancer and 990 colorectal cancer patients from Kaiser Permanente Colorado.
RESULTS: The time-dependent area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve statistics were computed for one, three, five, seven, and 10 year(s) postdiagnosis for prostate and colorectal cancer and ranged from 0.77 to 0.89 for death from cancer and from 0.72 to 0.81 for death from other causes. The calibration plots indicated a very good fit of the model for death from cancer for colorectal cancer and for the higher risk group for prostate cancer. For the lower risk groups for prostate cancer (<10% chance of dying of prostate cancer in 10 years), the model predicted slightly worse prognosis than observed. Except for the lowest risk group for colorectal cancer, the models for death from other causes for both prostate and colorectal cancer predicted slightly worse prognosis than observed.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of the external validation indicated that the colorectal and prostate cancer nomograms are reliable tools for physicians and patients to use to obtain information on prognosis and assist in establishing priorities for both treatment of the cancer and other conditions, particularly when a patient is elderly and/or has significant comorbidities. The slightly better than predicted risk of death from other causes in a health maintenance organization (HMO) setting may be due to an overall healthier population and the integrated management of disease relative to the overall population (as represented by SEER). Published by Oxford University Press 2014.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25417240      PMCID: PMC4841169          DOI: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgu021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr        ISSN: 1052-6773


  12 in total

1.  The relative survival rate: a statistical methodology.

Authors:  F EDERER; L M AXTELL; S J CUTLER
Journal:  Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1961-09

2.  Clinicians are most familiar with nomograms and rate their clinical usefulness highest, look-up tables are second best.

Authors:  Umberto Capitanio; Claudio Jeldres; Shahrokh F Shariat; Pierre Karakiewicz
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2008-05-08       Impact factor: 20.096

3.  Prostate cancer nomograms: an update.

Authors:  Felix K-H Chun; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Alberto Briganti; Andrea Gallina; Michael W Kattan; Francesco Montorsi; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-08-11       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach.

Authors:  E R DeLong; D M DeLong; D L Clarke-Pearson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 5.  Predicting cancer prognosis using interactive online tools: a systematic review and implications for cancer care providers.

Authors:  Borsika A Rabin; Bridget Gaglio; Tristan Sanders; Larissa Nekhlyudov; James W Dearing; Sheana Bull; Russell E Glasgow; Alfred Marcus
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2013-08-16       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Health-care utilization by prognosis profile in a managed care setting: using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Survival Calculator SEER*CSC.

Authors:  Borsika A Rabin; Jennifer L Ellis; John F Steiner; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Eric J Feuer; Benjamin F Hankey; Laurie Cynkin; Elizabeth Bayliss
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2014-11

7.  Providing clinicians and patients with actual prognosis: cancer in the context of competing causes of death.

Authors:  Nadia Howlader; Angela B Mariotto; Steven Woloshin; Lisa M Schwartz
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2014-11

8.  A competing-risks nomogram for sarcoma-specific death following local recurrence.

Authors:  Michael W Kattan; Glenn Heller; Murray F Brennan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2003-11-30       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Life tables adjusted for comorbidity more accurately estimate noncancer survival for recently diagnosed cancer patients.

Authors:  Angela B Mariotto; Zhuoqiao Wang; Carrie N Klabunde; Hyunsoon Cho; Barnali Das; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2013-09-10       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  The Cancer Survival Query System: making survival estimates from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program more timely and relevant for recently diagnosed patients.

Authors:  Eric J Feuer; Minjung Lee; Angela B Mariotto; Kathy A Cronin; Steve Scoppa; David F Penson; Mark Hachey; Laurie Cynkin; Ginger A Carter; David Campbell; Antoinette Percy-Laurry; Zhaohui Zou; Deborah Schrag; Benjamin F Hankey
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2012-05-08       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  10 in total

1.  Cause-specific mortality among Medicare beneficiaries with newly diagnosed non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes.

Authors:  Laura L Hester; Steven I Park; William A Wood; Til Stürmer; M Alan Brookhart; Jennifer L Lund
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Health-care utilization by prognosis profile in a managed care setting: using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Survival Calculator SEER*CSC.

Authors:  Borsika A Rabin; Jennifer L Ellis; John F Steiner; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Eric J Feuer; Benjamin F Hankey; Laurie Cynkin; Elizabeth Bayliss
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2014-11

3.  Cancer survival: an overview of measures, uses, and interpretation.

Authors:  Angela B Mariotto; Anne-Michelle Noone; Nadia Howlader; Hyunsoon Cho; Gretchen E Keel; Jessica Garshell; Steven Woloshin; Lisa M Schwartz
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2014-11

4.  Providing clinicians and patients with actual prognosis: cancer in the context of competing causes of death.

Authors:  Nadia Howlader; Angela B Mariotto; Steven Woloshin; Lisa M Schwartz
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2014-11

5.  KPT-330, a potent and selective exportin-1 (XPO-1) inhibitor, shows antitumor effects modulating the expression of cyclin D1 and survivin [corrected] in prostate cancer models.

Authors:  Giovanni Luca Gravina; Andrea Mancini; Patrizia Sanita; Flora Vitale; Francesco Marampon; Luca Ventura; Yosef Landesman; Dilara McCauley; Michael Kauffman; Sharon Shacham; Claudio Festuccia
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 4.430

6.  Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975-2014, Featuring Survival.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Elizabeth M Ward; Christopher J Johnson; Kathleen A Cronin; Jiemin Ma; Blythe Ryerson; Angela Mariotto; Andrew J Lake; Reda Wilson; Recinda L Sherman; Robert N Anderson; S Jane Henley; Betsy A Kohler; Lynne Penberthy; Eric J Feuer; Hannah K Weir
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 7.  Identification of Biomarkers for Breast Cancer Using Databases.

Authors:  Eunhye Lee; Aree Moon
Journal:  J Cancer Prev       Date:  2016-12-30

8.  Models predicting survival to guide treatment decision-making in newly diagnosed primary non-metastatic prostate cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  David Thurtle; Sabrina H Rossi; Brendan Berry; Paul Pharoah; Vincent J Gnanapragasam
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-06-22       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Development, Feasibility, and Small-Scale Implementation of a Web-Based Prognostic Tool-Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Cancer Survival Calculator.

Authors:  Michelle Henton; Bridget Gaglio; Laurie Cynkin; Eric J Feuer; Borsika A Rabin
Journal:  JMIR Cancer       Date:  2017-07-20

10.  Estimating life expectancy adjusted by self-rated health status in the United States: national health interview survey linked to the mortality.

Authors:  Hyunsoon Cho; Zhuoqiao Wang; K Robin Yabroff; Benmei Liu; Timothy McNeel; Eric J Feuer; Angela B Mariotto
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 3.295

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.