Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19670456›Full record

ArticleCancer2009

Estimating breast cancer-specific and other-cause mortality in clinical trial and population-based cancer registry cohorts.

James J Dignam, Lan Huang, Lynn Ries, Marsha Reichman, Angela Mariotto, Eric Feuer

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Comparative Toxicity and Effectiveness of Trastuzumab-Based Chemotherapy Regimens in Older Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2017
    Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Causes of death and relative survival of older women after a breast cancer diagnosis.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2011
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

James J DignamDepartment of Health Studies and Cancer Research Center, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA. jdignam@health.bsd.uchicago.edu
Lan Huang
Lynn Ries
Marsha Reichman
Angela Mariotto
Eric Feuer

Funding

PRIMARY CANCER THERAPY GROUP--NSABP (HEADQUARTERS)U10CA012027 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI WOLMARK, NORMAN · 1985 to 2012
$117.2M
PRIMARY BREAST CANCER THERAPY--BIOSTATISTICS CENTERU10CA069651 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI COSTANTINO, JOSEPH P. · 1995 to 2012
$52.1M
NCI NIH HHS U10 CA012027NCI NIH HHS U10 CA069651NCI NIH HHS U10-CA-12027NCI NIH HHS U10-CA-69651PHS HHS 263-MQ-611334
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo compute net cancer-specific survival rates using population data sources (eg, the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] Program), 2 approaches primarily are used: relative survival (observed survival adjusted for life expectancy) and cause-specific survival based on death certificates. The authors of this report evaluated the performance of these estimates relative to a third approach based on detailed clinical follow-up history.

methodsBy using data from Cancer Cooperative Group clinical trials in breast cancer, the authors estimated 1) relative survival, 2) breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) determined from death certificates, and 3) BCSS obtained by attributing cause according to clinical events after diagnosis, which, for this analysis was considered the benchmark "true" estimate. Noncancer life expectancy also was compared between trial participants, SEER registry patients, and the general population.

resultsAmong trial patients, relative survival overestimated true BCSS in patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer; whereas, in patients with lymph node-positive breast cancer, the 2 estimates were similar. For higher risk patients (younger age, larger tumors), relative survival accurately estimated true BCSS. In lower risk patients, death certificate BCSS was more accurate than relative survival. Noncancer life expectancy was more favorable among trial participants than in the general population and among SEER patients. Tumor size at diagnosis, which is a potential surrogate for screening use, partially accounted for this difference.

conclusionsIn the clinical trials, relative survival accurately estimated BCSS in patients who had higher risk disease despite more favorable other-cause mortality than the population at large. In patients with lower risk disease, the estimate using death certificate information was more accurate. For SEER data and other data sources where detailed postdiagnosis clinical history was unavailable, death certificate-based estimates of cause-specific survival may be a superior choice.

Indexed as

AgedBreast NeoplasmsCause of DeathClinical Trials as TopicDeath CertificatesFemaleHumansLife ExpectancyLymphatic MetastasisMiddle AgedMulticenter Studies as TopicPopulation SurveillanceRegistriesSEER ProgramSurvival AnalysisUnited States

Identifiers

PMID19670456
PMCPMC2783951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.