Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32134464›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Estimates of Overall Survival in Patients With Cancer Receiving Different Treatment Regimens: Emulating Hypothetical Target Trials in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare Linked Database.

Lucia C Petito, Xabier García-Albéniz, Roger W Logan, Nadia Howlader, Angela B Mariotto, Issa J Dahabreh, Miguel A Hernán

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 56 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Assessing the replicability of RCTs in RWE emulations.BMC medical research methodology · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lucia C PetitoDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Xabier García-AlbénizDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Roger W LoganDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Nadia HowladerDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Angela B MariottoDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Issa J DahabrehDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Miguel A HernánDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Harvard University · USNational Cancer Institute · USNorthwestern University · US

Funding

CALIFORNIA COORDINATED CANCER PREVENTION & CONTROL PROGRAMU58DP003862 · DP · CALIFORNIA STATE DEPT OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI SNIPES, KURT P · 2012 to 2014
$31.5M
Statistical Methods for the Spatio-Temporal Assessment of Social Disparities in CancerP01CA134294 · NCI · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI HANEUSE, SEBASTIEN, HERNAN, MIGUEL · 2008 to 2017
$6.8M
NCCDPHP CDC HHS U58 DP003862NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000034CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000035CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000140CNCI NIH HHS P01 CA134294
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database may provide insights into the comparative effectiveness of oncological treatments for elderly individuals who are underrepresented in clinical trials. Objective: To evaluate the suitability of SEER-Medicare data for assessing the effectiveness of adding a drug to an existing treatment regimen on the overall survival of elderly patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study analyzed SEER-Medicare data from 9549 individuals who received a new diagnosis of stage II colorectal cancer (2008-2012) and 940 patients who received a new diagnosis of advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (2007-2012), with follow-up to December 31, 2013 (SEER-Medicare data released in 2015). Two (hypothetical) target trials were designed and emulated based on 2 existing randomized clinical trials: (1) adjuvant fluorouracil after curative surgery for individuals with stage II colorectal cancer and (2) erlotinib added to gemcitabine for individuals with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Data were analyzed January 2018 to March 2019. Exposures: The following treatment strategies were compared: (1) fluorouracil initiation vs no initiation within 3 months of tumor resection and (2) erlotinib initiation vs no initiation within 12 weeks of gemcitabine initiation. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality within 60 months of baseline for the fluorouracil trial and within 72 weeks for the erlotinib trial. Results: Compared with 3293 individuals in the existing fluorouracil trial, 9549 eligible individuals included in the present analyses were more likely to have colon cancer (8565 [90%] vs 2291 [71%]) and were older (median [interquartile range], 79 [73-84] vs 63 [56-68] years). The 5-year risk difference for initiation vs noninitiation of fluorouracil after surgery was -3.8% (95% CI, -14.8% to 12.6%), and the mortality hazard ratio (HR) was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.85-1.04). Compared with 569 individuals in the existing erlotinib trial, 940 eligible patients included in the present analysis were older (median [range], 74 [66-93] vs 64 [36-92] years) and more likely to be male (547 [58%] vs 298 [52%]). The 1-year risk difference for initiation vs noninitiation of erlotinib was 4.7% (95% CI, -9.4% to 18.0%), and the corresponding mortality HR was 1.04 (95% CI, 0.86-1.42). In naive analyses, the mortality HR estimate was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.95-1.36) for the fluorouracil emulation and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.54-0.87) for the erlotinib emulation. Conclusions and Relevance: The present estimates were similar to those from randomized clinical trials that studied adding the same cancer drugs to existing regimens. The published HR was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.70-1.48) in the fluorouracil trial for individuals aged 70 or older and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.74-1.24) in the erlotinib trial for individuals aged 65 years or older. The SEER-Medicare database may be adequate for studying the real-world effectiveness of adding a drug to treatment regimens used for elderly individuals with cancer.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic AgentsColonic NeoplasmsDeoxycytidineErlotinib HydrochlorideFluorouracilGemcitabineHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPancreatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesSEER ProgramAntineoplastic AgentsDeoxycytidineErlotinib HydrochlorideFluorouracilGemcitabine

Identifiers

PMID32134464
PMCPMC7059023
OpenAlexW3010541123

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.