ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2026
Validation of a Composite Mortality End Point in a Large Clinicogenomic Real-World Database of Patients With Advanced Cancer.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeReal-world data from electronic health records and next-generation sequencing are used to study treatment effectiveness in molecularly refined patient populations. Incomplete mortality data can overestimate survival rates in these studies. The National Death Index (NDI) is the gold standard for mortality data in the United States, but limited accessibility and reporting delays hinder timely research. External sources can supplement and improve mortality data capture. We evaluated a composite mortality variable against NDI records in a large real-world cohort of patients with advanced cancer.
methodsDeidentified clinical and molecular data from patients with advanced solid tumors were linked with third-party mortality and claims data sets using deterministic tokenization. Vital status and death dates were harmonized across sources. Patient identifiers were submitted to NDI; true matches were deidentified and joined for analysis. Performance metrics were calculated using NDI as ground truth. Date agreement was assessed at 0-, ±15-, and ±30-day tolerances. Subgroup analyses and a cumulative case/dynamic control (CC/DC) approach were also performed.
resultsAmong 17,597 patients, the composite mortality variable demonstrated 82% sensitivity and 95% specificity against NDI. The positive predictive value was 96%, and the negative predictive value was 77%. Exact date agreement was 86%, increasing to 94% within a ±15-day tolerance and 96% within a ±30-day tolerance. Incorporating third-party data substantially improved the sensitivity from 17% to 82%. With the CC/DC approach, the sensitivity was 96% at 6 months, 97% at 12 months, and 98% at 24 months, with specificity above 98% across these time frames.
conclusionThe composite mortality variable is a robust and reliable end point for real-world evidence analyses with high accuracy for identified deaths and appropriate censoring of patients lost to follow-up.
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.