4.3 Article

A way to explore the existence of immortals in cancer registry data - An illustration using data from ICBP SURVMARK-2

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 76, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2021.102085

Keywords

Cancer registry; Cancer Survival; Immortals

Funding

  1. International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that, except in Ireland, there were few long-term survivors in the early years of the ICBP SURVMARK-2 project. This finding is important for accurately estimating cancer patient survival.
Background: Accurately recorded vital status of individuals is essential when estimating cancer patient survival. When deaths are ascertained by linkage with vital statistics registers, some may be missed, and such individuals will wrongly appear to be long-term survivors, and survival will be overestimated. Interval-specific relative survival that levels off above one indicates that the survival among the cancer patients is better than expected, which could be due to the presence of immortals. Methods: We included colon cancer cases diagnosed in 1995-1999 within the 19 jurisdictions in seven countries participating in ICBP SURVMARK-2, with follow-up information available until end-2015. Interval-specific relative survival was estimated for each year following diagnosis, by country and age group at diagnosis. Results: The interval-specific relative survival levels off at 1 for all countries and age groups, with two exceptions: for the age group diagnosed at age 75 years and above in Ireland, and, to a lesser extent, in New Zealand. Conclusion: Overall, a subset of immortals are not apparent in the early years within the ICBP SURVMARK-2 study, except for possibly in Ireland. We suggest this approach as one strategy of exploring the existence of immortals, and to be part of routine checks of cancer registry data.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available