Advertisement

Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 505–515 | Cite as

How can we make cancer survival statistics more useful for patients and clinicians: An illustration using localized prostate cancer in Sweden

  • Sandra ElorantaEmail author
  • Jan Adolfsson
  • Paul C. Lambert
  • Pär Stattin
  • Olof Akre
  • Therese M-L. Andersson
  • Paul W. Dickman
Original paper

Abstract

Purpose

Studies of cancer patient survival typically report relative survival or cause-specific survival using data from patients diagnosed many years in the past. From a risk-communication perspective, such measures are suboptimal for several reasons; their interpretation is not transparent for non-specialists, competing causes of death are ignored and the estimates are unsuitable to predict the outcome of newly diagnosed patients. In this paper, we discuss the relative merits of recently developed alternatives to traditionally reported measures of cancer patient survival.

Methods

In a relative survival framework, using a period approach, we estimated probabilities of death in the presence of competing risks. To illustrate the methods, we present estimates of survival among 23,353 initially untreated, or hormonally treated men with intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer using Swedish population-based data.

Results

Among all groups of newly diagnosed patients, the probability of dying from prostate cancer, accounting for competing risks, was lower compared to the corresponding estimates where competing risks were ignored. Accounting for competing deaths was particularly important for patients aged more than 70 years at diagnosis in order to avoid overestimating the risk of dying from prostate cancer.

Conclusions

We argue that period estimates of survival, accounting for competing risks, provide the tools to communicate the actual risk that cancer patients, diagnosed today, face to die from their disease. Such measures should offer a more useful basis for risk communication between patients and clinicians and we advocate their use as means to answer prognostic questions.

Keywords

Relative survival Prostate cancer Competing risks Period analysis Population based 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project was made possible by the continuous work of the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden steering group: Pär Stattin chair, Anders Widmark, Stefan Carlsson, Magnus Törnblom, Jan Adolfsson, Anna Bill-Axelson, Ove Andrén, David Robinson, Bill Pettersson, Jonas Hugosson, Jan-Erik Damber, Ola Bratt, Göran Ahlgren, Lars Egevad, and Mats Lambe. This work was supported by the Swedish Cancer Society (grant number CAN 2010/676).

References

  1. 1.
    Dickman PW, Adami HO (2006) Interpreting trends in cancer patient survival. J Intern Med 260:103–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Perme MP, Stare J, Esteve J (2012) On estimation in relative survival. Biometrics 68:113–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dignam JJ, Kocherginsky MN (2008) Choice and interpretation of statistical tests used when competing risks are present. J Clin Oncol 26:4027–4034PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Putter H, Fiocco M, Geskus RB (2007) Tutorial in biostatistics: competing risks and multi-state models. Stat Med 26:2389–2430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gail MH (2008) Estimation and interpretation of models of absolute risk from epidemiologic data, including family-based studies. Lifetime Data Anal 14:18–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Adolfsson J, Garmo H, Varenhorst E, Ahlgren G, Ahlstrand C, Andren O, Bill-Axelsson BO, Damber JE, Hellström K, Hellström M, Holmberg E et al (2007) Clinical characteristics and primary treatment of prostate cancer in Sweden between 1996 and 2005. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2007(41):456–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2010) Clinical practice guidelines in oncology, Prostate cancer, Version 1.2010Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D’Amico AV, Denham JW, Crook J, Chen MH, Goldhaber SZ, Lamb DS, Joseph D, Tai KH, Malone S, Ludgate C, Steigler A, Kantoff PW (2007) Influence of androgen suppression therapy for prostate cancer on the frequency and timing of fatal myocardial infarctions. J Clin Oncol 25:2420–2425PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tsai HK, D’Amico AV, Sadetsky N, Chen MH, Carroll PR (2007) Androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer and the risk of cardiovascular mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 99:1516–1524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Hemelrijck M, Garmo H, Holmberg L, Ingelsson E, Bratt O, Bill-Axelson A, Lambe M, Stattin P, Adolfsson J (2010) Absolute and relative risk of cardiovascular disease in men with prostate cancer: results from the Population-Based PCBaSe Sweden. J Clin Oncol 28:3448–3456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fang F, Fall K, Mittleman MA, Sparen P, Ye W, Adami HO, Valdimarsdóttir U (2012) Suicide and cardiovascular death after a cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 366:1310–1318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brenner H, Gefeller O, Hakulinen T (2004) Period analysis for ‘up-to-date’ cancer survival data: theory, empirical evaluation, computational realisation and applications. Eur J Cancer 40:326–335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brenner H, Hakulinen T (2002) Advanced detection of time trends in long-term cancer patient survival: experience from 50 years of cancer registration in Finland. Am J Epidemiol 156:566–577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dickman PW, Sloggett A, Hills M, Hakulinen T (2004) Regression models for relative survival. Stat Med 23:51–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Perme MP, Henderson R, Stare J (2009) An approach to estimation in relative survival regression. Biostatistics 10:136–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nelson CP, Lambert PC, Squire IB, Jones DR (2007) Flexible parametric models for relative survival, with application in coronary heart disease. Stat Med 26:5486–5498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lambert PC (2009) Further development of flexible parametric models for survival analysis. Stata J 9:265–290Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Durrleman S, Simon R (1989) Flexible regression models with cubic splines. Stat Med 8:551–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lambert PC, Dickman PW, Nelson CP, Royston P (2010) Estimating the crude probability of death due to cancer and other causes using relative survival models. Stat Med 29:885–895PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brenner H, Arndt V (2005) Long-term survival rates of patients with prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen screening era: population-based estimates for the year 2000 by period analysis. J Clin Oncol 23:441–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holmberg L, Robinson D, Sandin F, Bray F, Linklater KM, Klint A, Lambert PC, Adolfsson J, Hamdy FC, Catto J, Møller H (2012) A comparison of prostate cancer survival in England, Norway and Sweden: a population-based study. Cancer Epidemiol 36:e7–e12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stattin P, Holmberg E, Johansson JE, Holmberg L, Adolfsson J, Hugosson J (2010) Outcomes in localized prostate cancer: National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden follow-up study. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:950–958PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hinchliffe SR, Abrams KR, Lambert PC (2012) The impact of under and over-recording of cancer on death certificates in a competing risks analysis: a simulation study. Cancer Epidemiol (Epub ahead of print). doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2012.08.012
  24. 24.
    Howlader N, Ries LA, Mariotto AB, Reichman ME, Ruhl J, Cronin KA (2010) Improved estimates of cancer-specific survival rates from population-based data. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:1584–1598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Finnish Cancer Registry-Institute for Statistical and Epidemiological Cancer Research (2009) Cancer in Finland 2006 and 2007. Helsinki 2009. Publication No. 76Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Koller MT, Raatz H, Steyerberg EW, Wolbers M (2011) Competing risks and the clinical community: irrelevance or ignorance? Stat Med 31:1089–1097PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Feuer EJ, Lee M, Mariotto AB, Cronin KA, Scoppa S, Penson DF et al (2012) The Cancer Survival Query System: making survival estimates from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program more timely and relevant for recently diagnosed patients. Cancer 118:5652–5662PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brenner H, Hakulinen T (2003) On crude and age-adjusted relative survival rates. J Clin Epidemiol 56:1185–1191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pokhrel A, Hakulinen T (2008) How to interpret the relative survival ratios of cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 44:2661–2667PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA (2011) Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication. J Natl Cancer Inst 103:1436–1443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lipkus IM (2007) Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Mak 27:696–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lambert PC, Royston P (2009) Further development of flexible parametric models for survival analysis. Stata J 9:265–290Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra Eloranta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jan Adolfsson
    • 2
  • Paul C. Lambert
    • 1
    • 3
  • Pär Stattin
    • 4
    • 5
  • Olof Akre
    • 6
  • Therese M-L. Andersson
    • 1
  • Paul W. Dickman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  2. 2.CLINTECKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Department of Health Sciences, Center for Biostatistics and EpidemiologyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
  4. 4.Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Urology and AndrologyUmeå University HospitalUmeåSweden
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryUrology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  6. 6.Clinical Epidemiology UnitKarolinska University HospitalStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations