A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Effects of the length of central cancer registry operations on identification of subsequent cancers and on survival estimates. | LitMetric

Effects of the length of central cancer registry operations on identification of subsequent cancers and on survival estimates.

Cancer Epidemiol

Bureau of Cancer Epidemiology, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, United States.

Published: October 2016

Background: Population-based cancer survival analyses have traditionally been based on the first primary cancer. Recent studies have brought this practice into question, arguing that varying registry reference dates affect the ability to identify earlier cancers, resulting in selection bias. We used a theoretical approach to evaluate the extent to which the length of registry operations affects the classification of first versus subsequent cancers and consequently survival estimates.

Methods: Sequence number central was used to classify tumors from the New York State Cancer Registry, diagnosed 2001-2010, as either first primaries (value=0 or 1) or subsequent primaries (≥2). A set of three sequence numbers, each based on an assumed reference year (1976, 1986 or 1996), was assigned to each tumor. Percent of subsequent cancers was evaluated by reference year, cancer site and age. 5-year relative survival estimates were compared under four different selection scenarios.

Results: The percent of cancer cases classified as subsequent primaries was 15.3%, 14.3% and 11.2% for reference years 1976, 1986 and 1996, respectively; and varied by cancer site and age. When only the first primary was included, shorter registry operation time was associated with slightly lower 5-year survival estimates. When all primary cancers were included, survival estimates decreased, with the largest decreases seen for the earliest reference year.

Conclusions: Registry operation length affected the identification of subsequent cancers, but the overall effect of this misclassification on survival estimates was small. Survival estimates based on all primary cancers were slightly lower, but might be more comparable across registries.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2016.07.010DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

survival estimates
24
subsequent cancers
16
cancer registry
8
registry operations
8
identification subsequent
8
survival
8
based primary
8
subsequent primaries
8
reference year
8
1976 1986
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!