ArticleClinical epidemiology2024
Extracting Systemic Anticancer Treatment Lines from the Danish National Patient Registry for Solid Tumour Patients Treated in the North Denmark Region Between 2009 and 2019.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reconstructing patient treatment trajectories is important to generate real-world evidence for epidemiological studies. The Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR) contains information about drug prescriptions and could therefore be used to reconstruct treatment trajectories. We aimed to evaluate and enhance two existing methods to reconstruct systemic anticancer treatment trajectories. Methods: This study was based on data from 8738 consecutive patients with solid tumors treated in the North Denmark Region between 2009 and 2019. Two approaches found in the literature as well as two new approaches were applied to the DNPR data. All methods relied on time intervals between two consecutive drug administrations to determine if they belonged to the same treatment line. MedOnc, a local dataset from the Department of Oncology, Aalborg University Hospital was used as a reference. To evaluate the performance of each method, F1-scores were calculated after matching the lines identified in both datasets. We used three different matching strategies: stringent matching, loose matching, and matching based on line numbers, controlling for overfitting. Results: Overall, the two new approaches outperformed the simpler and best performing of the two existing methods, with F1-scores of 0.47 and 0.45 vs 0.44 for stringent matching and 0.84 and 0.83 vs 0.82 for loose matching. Nevertheless, only one of the new methods outperformed the existing simpler method when matching on the number of lines (0.73 vs 0.72). Large differences were seen by cancer site, especially for the stringent and line number matchings. Performances were relatively stable by calendar year. Conclusion: The high F1-scores for the new methods confirm that they should be generally preferred to reconstruct systemic anticancer treatment trajectories using the DNPR.
Indexed as
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.