Choosing the net survival method for cancer survival estimation.
Background A new net survival method has been introduced by Pohar Perme et al. (2012 [4]) and recommended to substitute the relative survival methods in current use for evaluating population-based cancer survival. Methods The new method is based on the use of continuous follow-up time, and is unbias...
| Publicado en: | European Journal of Cancer Vol. 51; no. 9; pp. 1123 - 1130 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , |
| Formato: | research Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Pergamon Press - An Imprint of Elsevier Science
Jun2015
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=103804085&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 103804085 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 09598049 1VW jtl: European Journal of Cancer issn: 09598049 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Jun2015 vid: 51 iid: 9 pid: 2410 pub: Pergamon Press - An Imprint of Elsevier Science artinfo: ui: 103804085 102897435 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.09.019 NLM24183462 103804085 ppf: 1123 ppct: 7 formats: tig: atl: Choosing the net survival method for cancer survival estimation. aug: au: Seppä, Karri Hakulinen, Timo Pokhrel, Arun affil: Finnish Cancer Registry, Institute for Statistical and Epidemiological Cancer Research, Pieni Roobertinkatu 9, FI-00130 Helsinki, Finland; Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland sug: subj: Neoplasms Epidemiology Survival Analysis Human Finland Descriptive Statistics ab: Background A new net survival method has been introduced by Pohar Perme et al. (2012 [4]) and recommended to substitute the relative survival methods in current use for evaluating population-based cancer survival. Methods The new method is based on the use of continuous follow-up time, and is unbiased only under non-informative censoring of the observed survival. However, the population-based cancer survival is often evaluated based on annually or monthly tabulated follow-up intervals. An empirical investigation based on data from the Finnish Cancer Registry was made into the practical importance of the censoring and the level of data tabulation. A systematic comparison was made against the earlier recommended Ederer II method of relative survival using the two currently available computer programs (Pohar Perme (2013) [10] and Dickman et al. (2013) [11]). Results With exact or monthly tabulated data, the Pohar-Perme and the Ederer II methods give, on average, results that are at five years of follow-up less than 0.5% units and at 10 and 14 years 1–2% units apart from each other. The Pohar-Perme net survival estimator is prone to random variation and may result in biased estimates when exact follow-up times are not available or follow-up is incomplete. With annually tabulated follow-up times, estimates can deviate substantially from those based on more accurate observations, if the actuarial approach is not used. Conclusion At 5 years, both the methods perform well. In longer follow-up, the Pohar-Perme estimates should be interpreted with caution using error margins. The actuarial approach should be preferred, if data are annually tabulated. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: research Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|