Dataset Information

Errors in determination of net survival: cause-specific and relative survival settings.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cause-specific and relative survival estimates differ. We aimed to examine these differences in common cancers where by possible identifying the most plausible sources of error in each estimate.

Methods

Ten-year cause-specific and relative survival were estimated for lung, breast, prostate, ovary, oesophagus and colorectal cancers. The cause-specific survival was corrected for misclassification of cause of death. The Pohar-Perme relative survival estimator was modified by (1) correcting for differences in deaths from ischaemic heart disease (IHD) between cancers and general population; or (2) correcting the population hazard for smoking (lung cancer only).

Results

For all cancers except breast and prostate, relative survival was lower than cause-specific. Correction for published error rates in cause of death gave implausible results. Correction for rates of IHD death gave slightly different relative survival estimates for lung, oesophagus and colorectal cancers. For lung cancer, when the population hazard was inflated for smoking, survival estimates were increased.

Conclusion

Results agreed with the consensus that relative survival is usually preferable. However, for some cancers, relative survival might be inaccurate (e.g. lung and prostate). Likely solutions include enhancing life tables to include other demographic variables than age and sex, and to stratify relative survival calculation by cause of death.

SUBMITTER: Bright CJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7109046 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Colorectal cancer (CRC) has high incidence and is associated with high case fatality. In France, the 5-year survival, pooled across all cancer stages at diagnosis, ranges from 57% in men to 60% in women. About one third of patients diagnosed with CRC will develop a metachronous recurrence during the following years. It is of paramount importance to accurately identify factors associated with the increased risk of progression and death, in order to develop effective follow-up and treatment strategies. However, to accurately assess the role of patients’ specific characteristics in the progression of cancer several methodological challenges need to be overcome. One difficulty, common to prognostic studies of cancer, concerns the need to separate the effects of prognostic factors on different clinical endpoints, such as disease recurrence vs recurrence-free death. Another difficulty, encountered in prognostic studies, is that the cause of death is not available or not accurately coded. Yet, some patients are likely to die of causes not related to the disease of primary interest, especially in cancers with longer survival and in those that affect older subjects. Until recently, the existing statistical methodology was not able to simultaneously, deal with both difficulties, i.e. to account for (i) possibly different effects of prognostic factors on death vs recurrence, and (ii) unknown causes of death. However, this challenge has been addressed by the recent development of the Markov relative survival model (MRS) , which extends the Markov multi-state model to incorporate relative survival modelling. Simulations demonstrate that MRS is able to accurately estimate different effects of prognostic factors on the risk of each of several events, including separate effects on disease-specific vs other causes of death. To date, the MRS had not been applied in clinical or epidemiological studies. The aim of this study was to assess the potential advantages of the new multi-state relative survival model (MRS), proposed by Huszti et al. (2012), in a prognostic cancer study. To this end, we compared the MRS results with those obtained with two more conventional analyses, based on Cox’s proportional hazards model, and the multi-state Markov model proposed by Alioum and Commenges (2001). The three models were applied to explore the impact of prognostic factors on cancer-specific mortality and recurrence, in a large population-based French registry of colorectal cancer, with up to 25 years of follow-up.

Project description:BackgroundA relative survival approach is often used in population-based cancer studies, where other cause (or expected) mortality is assumed to be the same as the mortality in the general population, given a specific covariate pattern. The population mortality is assumed to be known (fixed), i.e. measured without uncertainty. This could have implications for the estimated standard errors (SE) of any measures obtained within a relative survival framework, such as relative survival (RS) ratios and the loss in life expectancy (LLE). We evaluated the existing approach to estimate SE of RS and the LLE in comparison to if uncertainty in the population mortality was taken into account.MethodsThe uncertainty from the population mortality was incorporated using parametric bootstrap approach. The analysis was performed with different levels of stratification and sizes of the general population used for creating expected mortality rates. Using these expected mortality rates, SEs of 5-year RS and the LLE for colon cancer patients in Sweden were estimated.ResultsIgnoring uncertainty in the general population mortality rates had negligible (less than 1%) impact on the SEs of 5-year RS and LLE, when the expected mortality rates were based on the whole general population, i.e. all people living in a country or region. However, the smaller population used for creating the expected mortality rates, the larger impact. For a general population reduced to 0.05% of the original size and stratified by age, sex, year and region, the relative precision for 5-year RS was 41% for males diagnosed at age 85. For the LLE the impact was more substantial with a relative precision of 1286%. The relative precision for marginal estimates of 5-year RS was 3% and 30% and for the LLE 22% and 313% when the general population was reduced to 0.5% and 0.05% of the original size, respectively.ConclusionsWhen the general population mortality rates are based on the whole population, the uncertainty in the estimates of the expected measures can be ignored. However, when based on a smaller population, this uncertainty should be taken into account, otherwise SEs may be too small, particularly for marginal values, and, therefore, confidence intervals too narrow.