ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025
Adjusting for Population Differences in the National Cancer Database to Better Represent United States Cancer Cases: A Reference Tool for Researchers.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ki-67 expression and rates of pathologic complete response in T1cN0M0 triple-negative breast cancer: a national cancer database analysis.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Racial and ethnic disparities in esophageal cancer survival are greatest at curable stages: a population-based study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Affordable care act and 4-year all-cause mortality among U.S. working-age adults with or without cancer: 2000-2015.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe National Cancer Database (NCDB) is widely used in US cancer outcomes research, but its reliance on Commission on Cancer-approved hospitals can underrepresent certain populations, skew data, and limit generalizability of findings. Current literature is representative up through 2014. We sought to adjust NCDB cancer cases to better reflect total US cancer population in a useful way for cancer outcomes research.
methodsIncident cancer cases in the NCDB from 2016-2020 were compared with the US Cancer Statistics (USCS) database, which contains nearly 100% of new cancer cases. NCDB case coverage was defined as percentage of cases the NCDB represents of USCS cases. Coverage was determined for the entire cohort (age 20+ years), and sub-analyses were performed for age, sex, race/ethnicity, residence location, and cancer sites.
resultsFrom 2016-2020, 6,515,675 cancer cases were diagnosed in the NCDB and 9,311,593 in the USCS, yielding 70% NCDB case coverage over 5 years, which increased from 68 to 73%. The lowest case coverage was among men, 85+-year-olds, American Indian/Alaskan Native people, and Hispanic/Latino individuals (65%, 59%, 42%, and 55%). The Mountain region was the least represented (49%) as was nonmetropolitan residence (64%). Similar underrepresentation was seen among top cancers. Missingness of data was also captured.
conclusionsThough NCDB's representation of US cancer cases is improving, gaps remain, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, and residence location, further exacerbated by missing variables. We provide investigators using the NCDB with a way to represent cancer case data to better tailor research questions and frame outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40251365What 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.