Differences in Cancer Survival with Relative versus Cause-Specific Approaches: An Update Using More Accurate Life Tables.

Abstract

We investigated differences in net cancer survival (survival observed if the only possible cause of death was the cancer under study) estimated using new approaches for relative survival (RS) and cause-specific survival (CSS). We used SEER data for patients diagnosed in 2000 to 2013, followed-up through December 31, 2014. For RS, we used new life tables accounting for geography and socio-economic status. For CSS, we used the SEER cause of death algorithm for attributing cancer-specific death. Estimates were compared by site, age, stage, race, and time since diagnosis. Differences between 5-year RS and CSS were generally small. RS was always higher in screen-detectable cancers, for example, female breast (89.2% vs. 87.8%) and prostate (98.5% vs. 93.7%) cancers; differences increased with age or time since diagnosis. CSS was usually higher in the remaining cancer sites, particularly those related to specific risk factors, for example, cervix (70.9% vs. 68.3%) and liver (20.7% vs. 17.1%) cancers. For most cancer sites, the gap between estimates was smaller with more advanced stage.Conclusion: RS is the preferred approach to report cancer survival from registry data because cause of death may be inaccurate, particularly for older patients and long-term survivors as comorbidities increase challenges in determining cause of death. However, CSS proved to be more reliable in patients diagnosed with localized disease or cancers related to specific risk factors as general population life tables may not capture other causes of mortality. Different approaches for net survival estimation should be considered depending on cancer under study.