Reporting net survival in populations: a sensitivity analysis in lung cancer demonstrates the differential implications of reporting relative survival and cause-specific survival
Authors Tan KS, Eguchi T, Adusumilli PS
Received 2 April 2019
Accepted for publication 25 July 2019
Published 2 September 2019 Volume 2019:11 Pages 781—792
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Professor Henrik Toft Sørensen
Kay See Tan,1 Takashi Eguchi,2 Prasad S Adusumilli2
1Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10017, USA; 2Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA
Correspondence: Kay See Tan
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 485 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA
Tel +1 646 888 8257
Background: Net survival is commonly quantified as relative survival (observed survival among lung cancer patients versus expected survival among the general population) and cause-specific survival (lung cancer–specific survival among lung cancer patients). These approaches have drastically different assumptions; hence, failure to distinguish between them results in significant implications for study findings. We quantified the differences between relative and cause-specific survival when reporting net survival of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Methods: Cases of NSCLC diagnosed between 2004 and 2014 were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. The net survival of each stage-by-age stratum was expressed as cause-specific survival (Kaplan-Meier approach) and relative survival (Ederer II approach); percentage-point (pp) differences between the survival estimates were quantified up to 10 years postdiagnosis.
Results: Analyses included 263,894 cases. Cause-specific survival estimates were higher than relative survival estimates across all strata. Although the differences were negligible at 1 year postdiagnosis, they increased with increasing years of follow-up, up to 9.3 pp at 10 years (eg, aged 60–74 with stage I disease: 53.0% vs 43.7%). Differences in survival estimates between the methods also increased by increasing age groups (eg, at 10 years postdiagnosis: 5.1 pp for ages 18–44, 8.8 pp for ages 45–59, and 9.3 pp for ages 60–74) but decreased drastically for those aged ≥75 (3.1 pp).
Conclusion: Relative survival and cause-specific survival are not interchangeable. The type of survival estimate used in cancer studies should be specified, particularly for long-term survival.
Keywords: biostatistics, cancer epidemiology, epidemiological methods, mortality, lung cancer
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]