Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Background

To isolate progress against cancer from changes in competing causes of death, population cancer registries have traditionally reported cancer prognosis (net measures). But clinicians and cancer patients generally want to understand actual prognosis (crude measures): the chance of surviving, dying from the specific cancer and from competing causes of death in a given time period.

Objective

To compare cancer and actual prognosis in the United States for four leading cancers-lung, breast, prostate, and colon-by age, comorbidity, and cancer stage and to provide templates to help patients, clinicians, and researchers understand actual prognosis.

Method

Using population-based registry data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, we calculated cancer prognosis (relative survival) and actual prognosis (five-year overall survival and the "crude" probability of dying from cancer and competing causes) for three important prognostic determinants (age, comorbidity [Charlson-score from 2012 SEER-Medicare linkage dataset] and cancer stage at diagnosis).

Result

For younger, healthier, and earlier stage cancer patients, cancer and actual prognosis estimates were quite similar. For older and sicker patients, these prognosis estimates differed substantially. For example, the five-year overall survival for an 85-year-old patient with colorectal cancer is 54% (cancer prognosis) versus 22% (actual prognosis)-the difference reflecting the patient's substantial chance of dying from competing causes. The corresponding five-year chances of dying from the patient's cancer are 46% versus 37%. Although age and comorbidity lowered actual prognosis, stage at diagnosis was the most powerful factor: The five-year chance of colon cancer death was 10% for localized stage and 83% for distant stage.

Conclusion

Both cancer and actual prognosis measures are important. Cancer registries should routinely report both cancer and actual prognosis to help clinicians and researchers understand the difference between these measures and what question they can and cannot answer. We encourage them to use formats like the ones presented in this paper to communicate them clearly.

SUBMITTER: Howlader N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4841170 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Howlader Nadia N Mariotto Angela B AB Woloshin Steven S Schwartz Lisa M LM

Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs 20141101 49

<h4>Background</h4>To isolate progress against cancer from changes in competing causes of death, population cancer registries have traditionally reported cancer prognosis (net measures). But clinicians and cancer patients generally want to understand actual prognosis (crude measures): the chance of surviving, dying from the specific cancer and from competing causes of death in a given time period.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare cancer and actual prognosis in the United States for four leading cance ...[more]

PMID: 25417239

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn older patients with cancer, comorbidities compete with cancer for cause of death. The objectives were to evaluate cancer mortality and factors associated, according to metastatic status.MethodsBetween 2007 and 2014, patients with cancer aged ≥70 referred for pre-therapeutic geriatric assessment (GA) were included through the ELCAPA prospective cohort study. The underlying cause of death was defined according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision. The World Health Organisation definition was used to categorise the cause of death as cancer versus another disease (e.g. cardiovascular disease, infectious disease, etc.) Competing risk models were used.ResultsMean (SD) age of the 1445 included patients was 80.2 (5.8) and 48% were women. Most common tumour sites were colorectal (19%), breast (17%) and urinary (15%); 773 patients (49%) had metastases. After a 34-month median follow-up, 706 cancer deaths were observed among 843 deaths. The 6-month and 3-year cancer mortality rates (95% CI) were 12% (9-15) and 34% (29-38) for non-metastatic patients and 43% (39-47) and 79% (75-82) for metastatic patients, respectively. Dependency in activities of daily living and comorbidities were associated with 6-month and 3-year cancer mortality in non-metastatic (adjusted subhazard ratio [aSHR] = 1.68 [0.99-2.85] and 1.69 [1.16-2.45]; and 1.98 [1.08-3.63] and 3.38 [1.47-7.76], respectively) and metastatic patients (aSHR = 2.81 [2.01-3.93] and 2.95 [2.14-4.07]; and 1.63 [1.18-2.25] and 2.06 [1.39-3.05], respectively). Impaired Timed-Get-Up-and-Go test was associated with 6-month and 3-year cancer mortality in metastatic patients (aSHR = 1.5 [1.06-2.12] and 1.38 [1.06-1.81], respectively). Obesity was negatively associated with 3-year cancer death in non-metastatic (aSHR = 0.53 [0.29-0.97]) and metastatic patients (aSHR = 0.71 [0.51-1.00]).ConclusionsThe majority of older adults with cancer referred for pre-therapeutic GA die from cancer. Geriatric parameters are independently associated with cancer mortality and should be considered for prognosis assessment, decision-making and care.

Project description:AimTo show a new paradigm of simultaneously testing whether breast cancer therapies impact other causes of death.MethodsMA.14 allocated 667 postmenopausal women to 5 years of tamoxifen 20 mg/daily ± 2 years of octreotide 90 mg, given by depot intramuscular injections monthly. Event-free survival was the primary endpoint of MA.14; at median 7.9 years, the tamoxifen+octreotide and tamoxifen arms had similar event-free survival (P = 0.62). Overall survival was a secondary endpoint, and the two trial arms also had similar overall survival (P = 0.86). We used the median 9.8 years follow-up to examine by intention-to-treat, the multivariate time-to-breast cancer-specific (BrCa) and other cause (OC) mortality with log-normal survival analysis adjusted by treatment and stratification factors. We tested whether baseline factors including Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1), IGF binding protein-3, C-peptide, body mass index, and 25-hydroxy vitamin D were associated with (1) all cause mortality, and if so and (2) cause-specific mortality. We also fit step-wise forward cause-specific adjusted models.ResultsThe analyses were performed on 329 patients allocated tamoxifen and 329 allocated tamoxifen+octreotide. The median age of MA.14 patients was 60.1 years: 447 (82%) < 70 years and 120 (18%) ≥ 70 years. There were 170 deaths: 106 (62.3%) BrCa; 55 (32.4%) OC, of which 24 were other malignancies, 31 other causes of death; 9 (5.3%) patients with unknown cause of death were excluded from competing risk assessments. BrCa and OC deaths were not significantly different by treatment arm (P = 0.40): tamoxifen patients experienced 50 BrCa and 32 OC deaths, while tamoxifen + octreotide patients experienced 56 BrCa and 23 OC deaths. Proportionately more deaths (P = 0.004) were from BrCa for patients < 70 years, where 70% of deaths were due to BrCa, compared to 54% for those ≥ 70 years of age. The proportion of deaths from OC increased with increasing body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.02). Higher pathologic T and N were associated with more BrCa deaths (P < 0.0001 and 0.002, respectively). The cumulative hazard plot for BrCa and OC mortality indicated the concurrent accrual of both types of death throughout follow-up, that is the existence of competing risks of mortality. MA.14 therapy did not impact mortality (P = 0.77). Three baseline patient and tumor characteristics were differentially associated with cause of death: older patients experienced more OC (P = 0.01) mortality; patients with T1 tumors and hormone receptor positive tumors had less BrCa mortality (respectively, P = 0.01, P = 0.06). Additionally, step-wise cause-specific models indicated that patients with node negative disease experienced less BrCa mortality (P = 0.002); there was weak evidence that, lower C-peptide (P = 0.08) was associated with less BrCa mortality, while higher BMI (P = 0.01) was associated with worse OC mortality.ConclusionWe demonstrate here a new paradigm of simultaneous testing of therapeutics directed at multiple diseases for which postmenopausal women are concurrently at risk. Octreotide LAR did not significantly impact breast cancer or other cause mortality, although different baseline factors influenced type of death.

Project description:BackgroundChemotherapy is expected to reduce cancer deaths (CD), while possibly being harmful in terms of non-cancer deaths (NCD) because of toxicity. Peto's log-rank test is popular in the medical literature, but its operating characteristics are barely known. We compared this test to the most common ones in the statistical literature: the cause-specific hazard test and Gray's test on the hazard of the subdistribution. We investigated for the first time the impact of reclassifications of causes of death (CoD) after recurrences, and of misclassification of CoD.MethodsWe present a simulation study in which we varied the censoring rate and the correlation between CD and NCD times, we generated recurrence times to study the role of the reclassification of CoD, and we added 20% misclassified CoD. We considered four scenarios for the treatment effect: none; none for CD and negative for NCD; positive for CD and none for NCD; positive for CD and negative for NCD. We applied the three tests to a randomized clinical trial evaluating adjuvant chemotherapy in 1,867 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.ResultsMost often the three tests well preserved their nominal size, Gray's test did not when the treatment had an effect on the competing CoD. With a high rate of misclassified CoD, Gray's and the cause-specific tests lost much of their power, whereas the Peto's test had the highest power. The cause-specific test had inflated size for NCD when the treatment was beneficial for CD with many misclassified CoD, but had the highest power for NCD when the treatment had no effect on CD, and had similar power to Peto's test for CD when the treatment had no effect on NCD. Gray's test performed best when the effect on the two CoD was opposite. The higher the censoring, the lower the rejection probabilities of all the tests and the smaller their differences.ConclusionsIn this first head-to-head comparison of the three tests, the cause-specific test often proved to be the most reliable. Comparing results with and without misclassification of the CoD, Peto's test was the least influenced by the presence of such misclassification.

Project description:ObjectivesCumulative incidence of lung cancer deaths (LC-CID) is an important metric to understand cancer prognosis and to determine treatment options. However, credible estimates of LC-CID rely on accurate cause-of-death coding in death certificates. Results from lung cancer screening trials estimated 15% under-reporting and 1% over-reporting of lung cancer deaths due to misclassification. This study investigated the impact of cause-of-death misclassification on the estimation of LC-CID.Materials and methodsPatients with stage I/II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry were included. LC-CID was estimated using the competing-risk approach in two ways: (1) reporting observed estimates that ignore potential cause-of-death misclassification and (2) correcting for plausible misclassification rates reported in the literature (15% under-reporting and 1% over-reporting). Bias was quantified as the difference between observed and corrected 10-year LC-CIDs: positive values indicated that observed LC-CID overestimated true LC-CID, whereas negative values indicated the opposite.ResultsAmong 66,179 patients, the impact of over-reporting on 10-year LC-CID was negligible across all age groups. In contrast, under-reporting resulted in substantial underestimation of 10-year LC-CID. The biases increased as age increased due to higher LC-CIDs: 10-year LC-CIDs among stage I patients 18-44, 45-59, 60-74 and ≥75 years were 25%, 32%, 41%, and 50%, respectively, and the corresponding biases given the plausible misclassification rates were -4.4%, -5.6%, -7.1%, and -8.6%. Because the observed LC-CIDs among patients with stage II disease were higher than those with stage I disease, the biases were greater among stage II patients, up to -12.5% in the oldest age group.ConclusionsIn lung cancer, LC-CID may be severely underestimated due to under-reporting of lung cancer deaths, particularly among older patients or those with late-stage disease. Future studies that involve such subpopulations should present the corrected LC-CIDs based on plausible misclassification rates alongside the observed LC-CIDs.

Project description:BackgroundHealth care services internationally are refocussing care delivery towards patient centred, integrated care that utilises effective, efficient and innovative models of care to optimise patient outcomes and system sustainability. Whilst significant efforts have been made to examine and enhance patient experience, to date little has progressed in relation to provider experience. This review aims to explore this knowledge gap by capturing evidence of clinician experience, and how this experience is defined and measured in the context of health system change and innovation.MethodsA rapid review of published and grey literature review was conducted utilising a rapid evidence assessment methodology. Seventy-nine studies retrieved from the literature were included in the review. Fourteen articles were identified from the grey literature search and one article obtained via hand searching. In total, 94 articles were included in the review. This study was commissioned by and co-designed with the New South Wales, Ministry of Health.ResultsClinician experience of delivering health care is inconsistently defined in the literature, with identified articles lacking clarity regarding distinctions between experience, engagement and work-related outcomes such as job satisfaction. Clinician experience was commonly explored using qualitative research that focused on experiences of discrete health care activities or events in which a change was occurring. Such research enabled exploration of complex experiences. In these contexts, clinician experience was captured in terms of self-reported information that clinicians provided about the health care activity or event, their perceptions of its value, the lived impacts they experienced, and the specific behaviours they displayed in relation to the activity or event. Moreover, clinician's experience has been identified to have a paucity of measurement tools.ConclusionLiterature to date has not examined clinician experience in a holistic sense. In order to achieve the goals identified in relation to value-based care, further work is needed to conceptualise clinician experience and understand the nature of measurement tools required to assess this. In health system application, a broader 'clinician pulse' style assessment may be valuable to understand the experience of clinical work on a continuum rather than in the context of episodes of change/care.

Dataset Information

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

Background

Objective

Method

Result

Conclusion

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets