Search

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/npjbcancer.2016.17.].

The 21-gene Recurrence Score assay is validated to predict recurrence risk and chemotherapy benefit in hormone-receptor-positive (HR+) invasive breast cancer. To determine prospective breast-cancer-specific mortality (BCSM) outcomes by baseline Recurrence Score results and clinical covariates, the National Cancer Institute collaborated with Genomic Health and 14 population-based registries in the the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program to electronically supplement cancer surveillance data with Recurrence Score results. The prespecified primary analysis cohort was 40-84 years of age, and had node-negative, HR+, HER2-negative, nonmetastatic disease diagnosed between January 2004 and December 2011 in the entire SEER population, and Recurrence Score results (N=38,568). Unadjusted 5-year BCSM were 0.4% (n=21,023; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.3-0.6%), 1.4% (n=14,494; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7%), and 4.4% (n=3,051; 95% CI, 3.4-5.6%) for Recurrence Score

Background: 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). Methods: 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. Results: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Black women with ovarian cancer experience worse survival than white women. Receipt of guideline care improves survival, yet care may vary by race. We assessed rates of guideline care and role of guideline treatment on survival disparities. Methods: This retrospective cohort analysis used the NCI's Patterns of Care data for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer, 2002 and 2011 (weighted n = 3,999), with follow-up through December 12, 2014. Logistic regression included patient characteristics, insurance, and gynecologic oncologist (GO) consultation to produce adjusted standardized percentages of women receiving guideline treatment by race. Cox proportional hazards analysis assessed risk of ovarian cancer death. Results: Guideline care was significantly lower for black women compared with white women (adjusted 27.5% vs. 34.1%). Increased receipt of guideline care was associated with GO consultation, younger ages, stage, and insurance. Rates of GO consultation were comparable for black and white women, approximately 60%. Black women were more likely to receive no surgery or no chemotherapy if they did not consult a GO. The unadjusted death risk was significantly higher in black women (HR = 1.33). After adjusting for receipt of guideline care and other factors, black and white women had similar risk of death (HR = 1.05). Conclusions: Race was not associated with risk of death when guideline care was included in multivariate survival models. However, black patients received less guideline care. GO consultation significantly increased receipt of guideline care. Impact: Research is needed to understand treatment perspectives for black patients and their providers to increase the receipt of guideline care and reduce survival disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The considerable deficit in cancer diagnoses in 2020 due to COVID-19 pandemic disruptions in health care can pose challenges in the estimation and interpretation of long-term cancer trends. Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) (2000-2020) data, we demonstrate that inclusion of the 2020 incidence rates in joinpoint models to estimate trends can result in a poorer fit to the data and less accurate or less precise trend estimates, providing challenges in the interpretation of the estimates as a cancer control measure. To measure the decline in 2020 relative to 2019 cancer incidence rates, we used the percent change of rates in 2020 compared with 2019. Overall, SEER cancer incidence rates dropped approximately 10% in 2020, but for thyroid cancer the decrease was as large as 18% after adjusting for reporting delay. The 2020 SEER incidence data are available in all SEER released products, except for joinpoint estimates of trends and lifetime risk of developing cancer., (Published by Oxford University Press 2023.)

Background: Chemotherapy information in the population-based cancer registries is underascertained and lacks detail. We conducted a pilot study in the Georgia SEER Cancer Registry (GCR) to investigate the feasibility of supplementing chemotherapy information using billing claims from six private oncology practices (OP)., Methods: To assess cancer patients' representativeness from OP, we compared individuals with invasive first primary cancers diagnosed during 2013-2015 in the GCR (cohort 1) with those who had at least one OP claim in the 12 months after diagnosis (cohort 2). To assess completeness of OP claims to capture chemotherapy (yes or no), we further restricted cohort 2 to patients ages 65 years and older enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare Part A and B from the diagnosis date through 12 months follow-up or to the date of death. With Medicare data serving as the gold standard, sensitivity, specificity, and kappa statistics for the receipt of chemotherapy per OP claims were calculated by demographic and clinical characteristics., Results: Cancer patients seeking care in the OP included in our analysis were not representative of the underlying patient population in the GCR. The practices underrepresented minorities and uninsured while overrepresenting females, persons with high socioeconomic status, patients residing outside the metropolitan Atlanta area, and persons with advance staged disease. The ability of practice claims to identify chemotherapy receipt was moderate (76.1% sensitivity) but varied by demographic and clinical characteristics (76.1-83.0%)., Conclusions: Given the limited ability of OP claims to identify chemotherapy receipt, we suggest analyzing these data for hypothesis generation, but inference should be limited to this patient cohort., (Published by Oxford University Press 2020. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.)

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/npjbcancer.2016.17.].

Background: To isolate progress against cancer from changes in competing causes of death, population cancer registries have traditionally reported cancer prognosis (net measures). But clinicians and cancer patients generally want to understand actual prognosis (crude measures): the chance of surviving, dying from the specific cancer and from competing causes of death in a given time period., Objective: To compare cancer and actual prognosis in the United States for four leading cancers-lung, breast, prostate, and colon-by age, comorbidity, and cancer stage and to provide templates to help patients, clinicians, and researchers understand actual prognosis., Method: Using population-based registry data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, we calculated cancer prognosis (relative survival) and actual prognosis (five-year overall survival and the "crude" probability of dying from cancer and competing causes) for three important prognostic determinants (age, comorbidity [Charlson-score from 2012 SEER-Medicare linkage dataset] and cancer stage at diagnosis)., Result: For younger, healthier, and earlier stage cancer patients, cancer and actual prognosis estimates were quite similar. For older and sicker patients, these prognosis estimates differed substantially. For example, the five-year overall survival for an 85-year-old patient with colorectal cancer is 54% (cancer prognosis) versus 22% (actual prognosis)-the difference reflecting the patient's substantial chance of dying from competing causes. The corresponding five-year chances of dying from the patient's cancer are 46% versus 37%. Although age and comorbidity lowered actual prognosis, stage at diagnosis was the most powerful factor: The five-year chance of colon cancer death was 10% for localized stage and 83% for distant stage., Conclusion: Both cancer and actual prognosis measures are important. Cancer registries should routinely report both cancer and actual prognosis to help clinicians and researchers understand the difference between these measures and what question they can and cannot answer. We encourage them to use formats like the ones presented in this paper to communicate them clearly., (Published by Oxford University Press 2014.)