Measuring cancer survival in populations: relative survival vs cancer-specific survival
Measuring cancer survival in populations: relative survival vs cancer-specific survival
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/ije/dyp392
复制
发表时间：
2010-04-01
影响因子：
7.7
通讯作者：
Pearce, Neil
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sarfati, Diana;Blakely, Tony;Pearce, Neil
方法在本文中，我们研究了两种生存分析方法的假设。我们分别为死因特异性和相对生存方法提供了与死亡错误分类和预期生存不可比较性的影响相关的模拟。结果：在病因特异性分析中，对死亡原因的错误分类导致的偏倚在描述性分析中出现误差，特别是在生存率中等或较差的癌症中，但在涉及组比较的分析中影响较小。相对生存率（RSR）的估计与单一RSR的比较人群的非可比性有关，但在生存差异较大的组比较中，相对生存率（RSR）的估计不太可靠。在基于人群的癌症生存研究中，病因特异性生存和相对生存都是潜在有效的流行病学方法，方法的选择取决于待进行的具体分析中偏差的可能大小和方向。
Methods In this article we investigate the assumptions underlying both methods of survival analysis. We provide simulations relating to the impact of misclassification of death and non-comparability of expected survival for cause-specific and relative survival approaches, respectively.Results For cause-specific analyses, bias through misclassification of cause of death resulted in error in descriptive analyses particularly of cancers with moderate or poor survival, but had smaller impact in analyses involving group comparisons. Relative survival ratio (RSR) estimations were robust in relation to non-comparability of comparison populations for single RSR but were less so in group comparisons where there was large variation in survival.Conclusions Both cause-specific survival and relative survival are potentially valid epidemiological methods in population-based cancer survival studies, and the choice of method is dependent on the likely magnitude and direction of the biases in the specific analyses to be conducted.