ArticleJournal of cancer epidemiology2022
Impact of the Management and Proportion of Lost to Follow-Up Cases on Cancer Survival Estimates for Small Population-Based Cancer Registries.
Article in Journal of cancer epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Potential functions and mechanisms of lysine crotonylation modification (Kcr) in tumorigenesis and lymphatic metastasis of papillary thyroid cancer (PTC).Journal of translational medicine · 2024Article
- Incidence and Characteristics of Multiple Primary Cancers: A 20-Year Retrospective Study of a Single Cancer Center in Korea.Cancers · 2024Article
- Post-discharge follow-up of patients with spine trauma in the National Spinal Cord Injury Registry of Iran during the COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges and lessons learned.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2024Observational
- Population-based overall and net survival of childhood leukemia at 1-, 5-, and 10-years of follow-up in three regions of Colombia.Ecancermedicalscience · 2024Article
- Article
- Deterministic linkage for improving follow-up time in a Brazilian population-based cancer registry.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- FGFR1-4 RNA-Based Gene Alteration and Expression Analysis in Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEstimation of survival requires follow-up of patients from diagnosis until death ensuring complete and good quality data. Many population-based cancer registries in low- and middle-income countries have difficulties linking registry data with regional or national vital statistics, increasing the chances of cases lost to follow-up. The impact of lost to follow-up cases on survival estimates from small population-based cancer registries (<500 cases) has been understudied, and bias could be larger than in larger registries.
methodsWe simulated scenarios based on idealized real data from three population-based cancer registries to assess the impact of loss to follow-up on 1-5-year overall and net survival for stomach, colon, and thyroid cancers-cancer types with very different prognosis. Multiple scenarios with varying of lost to follow-up proportions (1-20%) and sample sizes of (100-500 cases) were carried out. We investigated the impact of excluding versus censoring lost to follow-up cases; punctual and bootstrap confidence intervals for the average bias are presented.
resultsCensoring of lost to follow-up cases lead to overestimation of the overall survival, this effect was strongest for cancers with a poor prognosis and increased with follow-up time and higher proportion of lost to follow-up cases; these effects were slightly larger for net survival than overall survival. Excluding cases lost to follow-up did not generate a bias on survival estimates on average, but in individual cases, there were under- and overestimating survival. For gastric, colon, and thyroid cancer, relative bias on 5-year cancer survival with 1% of lost to follow-up varied between 6% and 125%, 2% and 40%, and 0.1% and 1.0%, respectively.
conclusionEstimation of cancer survival from small population-based registries must be interpreted with caution: even small proportions of censoring, or excluding lost to follow-up cases can inflate survival, making it hard to interpret comparison across regions or countries.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.