PURPOSE: The ratio of cancer mortality and cancer incidence rates in a population has conventionally been used as an indicator of the completeness of cancer registration. More recently, the complement of the mortality-to-incidence ratio (1-M/I) has increasingly been presented as a surrogate for cancer survival. We discuss why this is mistaken in principle and misleading in practice. METHODS: We provide an empirical assessment of the extent to which trends in the 1-M/I ratio reflect trends in cancer survival. We used national cancer incidence, mortality and survival data in England to compare trends in both the 1-M/I ratio and net survival at 1, 5, and 10 years for 19 cancers in men and 20 cancers in women over the 29-year period from 1981 to 2009. RESULTS: The absolute difference between the 1-M/I ratio and 5-year net survival for 2009 was less than 5% for only 12 of the 39 cancer/sex combinations examined. For an additional 12, the 1-M/I ratio differed from 5-year net survival by at least 15%. The comparison is also unstable over time; thus, even when differences were small for 2009, the difference between 5-year net survival and the 1-M/I ratio had changed dramatically for most cancers between 1981 and 2009. CONCLUSION: The 1-M/I ratio lacks any theoretical basis as a proxy for cancer survival. It is not a valid proxy for cancer survival in practice, either, whether at 5 years or at any other time interval since diagnosis. It has none of the useful properties of a population-based survival estimate. It should not be used as a surrogate for cancer survival.
PURPOSE: The ratio of cancer mortality and cancer incidence rates in a population has conventionally been used as an indicator of the completeness of cancer registration. More recently, the complement of the mortality-to-incidence ratio (1-M/I) has increasingly been presented as a surrogate for cancer survival. We discuss why this is mistaken in principle and misleading in practice. METHODS: We provide an empirical assessment of the extent to which trends in the 1-M/I ratio reflect trends in cancer survival. We used national cancer incidence, mortality and survival data in England to compare trends in both the 1-M/I ratio and net survival at 1, 5, and 10 years for 19 cancers in men and 20 cancers in women over the 29-year period from 1981 to 2009. RESULTS: The absolute difference between the 1-M/I ratio and 5-year net survival for 2009 was less than 5% for only 12 of the 39 cancer/sex combinations examined. For an additional 12, the 1-M/I ratio differed from 5-year net survival by at least 15%. The comparison is also unstable over time; thus, even when differences were small for 2009, the difference between 5-year net survival and the 1-M/I ratio had changed dramatically for most cancers between 1981 and 2009. CONCLUSION: The 1-M/I ratio lacks any theoretical basis as a proxy for cancer survival. It is not a valid proxy for cancer survival in practice, either, whether at 5 years or at any other time interval since diagnosis. It has none of the useful properties of a population-based survival estimate. It should not be used as a surrogate for cancer survival.
Authors: Philip W Setel; Sarah B Macfarlane; Simon Szreter; Lene Mikkelsen; Prabhat Jha; Susan Stout; Carla AbouZahr Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-11-03 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Fatemeh Asadzadeh Vostakolaei; Henrike E Karim-Kos; Maryska L G Janssen-Heijnen; Otto Visser; André L M Verbeek; Lambertus A L M Kiemeney Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2010-09-02 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Peter Sandiford; Manar E Abdel-Rahman; Claudia Allemani; Michel P Coleman; Geeta Gala Journal: Aust N Z J Public Health Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 2.939
Authors: James R Hébert; Virginie G Daguise; Deborah M Hurley; Rebecca C Wilkerson; Catishia M Mosley; Swann A Adams; Robin Puett; James B Burch; Susan E Steck; Susan W Bolick-Aldrich Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jan M Eberth; Whitney E Zahnd; Swann Arp Adams; Daniela B Friedman; Stephanie B Wheeler; James R Hébert Journal: Prev Med Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Wen-Jung Chen; Cheng-Yu Huang; Yu-Hui Huang; Shao-Chuan Wang; Tzuo-Yi Hsieh; Sung-Lang Chen; Wen-Wei Sung; Tsung-Hsien Lee Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Shao-Chuan Wang; Nai-Wen Chang; Wen-Jung Chen; Min-Hsin Yang; Sung-Lang Chen; Wen-Wei Sung Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-06 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Máté Várnai; Zoltán Kiss; Rolland Gyulai; Judit Oláh; Péter Holló; Gabriella Emri; András Csejtei; István Kenessey; Angéla Benedek; Zoltán Polányi; Zsófia Nagy-Erdei; Andrea Dániel; Kata Knollmajer; György Rokszin; Ibolya Fábián; Zsófia Barcza; Csaba Polgár; Balázs Nagy; Gabriella Liszkay; Zoltán Vokó Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Wen-Wei Sung; Yong-Chen Hsu; Chen Dong; Ying-Ching Chen; Yu-Chi Chao; Chih-Jung Chen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Tamar B Nobel; Charles K Asumeng; John Jasek; Kellie C Van Beck; Ruchi Mathur; Baozhen Qiao; Jennifer J Brown Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-10-02 Impact factor: 4.452