ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025
The impact of cancer survivors' extra risk of noncancer mortality on net survival estimation.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cancer Patients Mortality From Other Causes: A European Population-Based Study.Cancer medicine · 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Relative survival (RS) with the general population as the reference is commonly used to estimate net survival (NS). However, cancer patients may face an increased risk of noncancer death compared to cancer-free individuals. We evaluate the impact of considering this relative risk (RR) on NS estimation. First, we compared selected NS values to generated RS under various theoretical scenarios, considering different RR, NS, age at diagnosis, time since diagnosis, and sex. Then, differences between NS and RS for 3 cancers were analyzed from cure model-based estimates using EUROCARE-6 data. We observed differences between RS and the true value of NS, larger for longer time since diagnosis, older patients, and higher NS. For head and neck cancer, the smallest differences were for young female patients at 5 years from diagnosis (4%) and the highest (32%) for older patients. For colorectal cancer, differences were <7% for all ages, both sexes, and times since diagnosis and for breast cancer, differences were <5% except for older patients after 5 years. If RR > 1, RS underestimates NS. Our findings aim to correctly interpret the differences between RS and NS, and contextualize the possible biases of assuming RS as a proxy for cancer-specific survival.
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.