Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32216765›Full record

ReviewBMC medical research methodology2020

On estimating the time to statistical cure.

Lasse H Jakobsen, Therese M-L Andersson, Jorne L Biccler, Laurids Ø Poulsen, Marianne T Severinsen, Tarec C El-Galaly, Martin Bøgsted

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Potential for Cure by Stage across the Cancer Spectrum in the United States.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

7 authors.

Lasse H JakobsenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Sdr. Skovvej 15, Aalborg, 9000, Denmark. lahja@dcm.aau.dk.
Therese M-L AnderssonDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Nobels Väg, Stockholm, 171 65, Sweden.
Jorne L BicclerDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Sdr. Skovvej 15, Aalborg, 9000, Denmark.
Laurids Ø PoulsenDepartment of Oncology, Aalborg University Hospital, Hobrovej 18-22, Aalborg, 9000, Denmark.
Marianne T SeverinsenDepartment of Hematology, Aalborg University Hospital, Sdr. Skovvej 15, Aalborg, 9000, Denmark.
Tarec C El-GalalyDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Sdr. Skovvej 15, Aalborg, 9000, Denmark.
Martin BøgstedDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Sdr. Skovvej 15, Aalborg, 9000, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe mortality risk among cancer patients measured from the time of diagnosis is often elevated in comparison to the general population. However, for some cancer types, the patient mortality risk will over time reach the same level as the general population mortality risk. The time point at which the mortality risk reaches the same level as the general population is called the cure point and is of great interest to patients, clinicians, and health care planners. In previous studies, estimation of the cure point has been handled in an ad hoc fashion, often without considerations about margins of clinical relevance.

methodsWe review existing methods for estimating the cure point and discuss new clinically relevant measures for quantifying the mortality difference between cancer patients and the general population, which can be used for cure point estimation. The performance of the methods is assessed in a simulation study and the methods are illustrated on survival data from Danish colon cancer patients.

resultsThe simulations revealed that the bias of the estimated cure point depends on the measure chosen for quantifying the excess mortality, the chosen margin of clinical relevance, and the applied estimation procedure. These choices are interdependent as the choice of mortality measure depends both on the ability to define a margin of clinical relevance and the ability to accurately compute the mortality measure. The analysis of cancer survival data demonstrates the importance of considering the confidence interval of the estimated cure point, as these may be wide in some scenarios limiting the applicability of the estimated cure point.

conclusionsAlthough cure points are appealing in a clinical context and has widespread applicability, estimation remains a difficult task. The estimation relies on a number of choices, each associated with pitfalls that the practitioner should be aware of.

Indexed as

Colonic NeoplasmsComputer SimulationHumansRisk FactorsCancer survivalCure pointStatistical cure

Identifiers

PMID32216765
PMCPMC7098130

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.