Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Sdr. Skovvej 15, Aalborg, 9000, Denmark.
Department of Hematology, Aalborg University Hospital, Sdr. Skovvej 15, Aalborg, 9000, Denmark.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Mar 26;20(1):71. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-00946-8.
The mortality risk among cancer patients measured from the time of diagnosis is often elevated in comparison to the general population. However, for some cancer types, the patient mortality risk will over time reach the same level as the general population mortality risk. The time point at which the mortality risk reaches the same level as the general population is called the cure point and is of great interest to patients, clinicians, and health care planners. In previous studies, estimation of the cure point has been handled in an ad hoc fashion, often without considerations about margins of clinical relevance.
We review existing methods for estimating the cure point and discuss new clinically relevant measures for quantifying the mortality difference between cancer patients and the general population, which can be used for cure point estimation. The performance of the methods is assessed in a simulation study and the methods are illustrated on survival data from Danish colon cancer patients.
The simulations revealed that the bias of the estimated cure point depends on the measure chosen for quantifying the excess mortality, the chosen margin of clinical relevance, and the applied estimation procedure. These choices are interdependent as the choice of mortality measure depends both on the ability to define a margin of clinical relevance and the ability to accurately compute the mortality measure. The analysis of cancer survival data demonstrates the importance of considering the confidence interval of the estimated cure point, as these may be wide in some scenarios limiting the applicability of the estimated cure point.
Although cure points are appealing in a clinical context and has widespread applicability, estimation remains a difficult task. The estimation relies on a number of choices, each associated with pitfalls that the practitioner should be aware of.
与一般人群相比,从诊断时间衡量的癌症患者的死亡风险通常较高。然而,对于某些癌症类型,随着时间的推移,患者的死亡风险将达到与一般人群死亡率相同的水平。死亡风险达到与一般人群相同水平的时间点称为治愈点,这对患者、临床医生和医疗保健规划者都非常感兴趣。在以前的研究中,治愈点的估计是一种特殊的处理方式,通常没有考虑到临床相关的边界。
我们回顾了现有的治愈点估计方法,并讨论了用于量化癌症患者与一般人群之间死亡率差异的新的临床相关措施,这些措施可用于治愈点估计。在模拟研究中评估了这些方法的性能,并在丹麦结肠癌患者的生存数据上说明了这些方法。
模拟结果表明,估计治愈点的偏差取决于用于量化超额死亡率的测量方法、选择的临床相关边界以及应用的估计程序。这些选择是相互依存的,因为死亡率测量方法的选择取决于定义临床相关边界的能力和准确计算死亡率测量方法的能力。癌症生存数据分析表明,考虑估计治愈点的置信区间非常重要,因为在某些情况下,这些置信区间可能很宽,从而限制了估计治愈点的适用性。
尽管治愈点在临床背景下很有吸引力,并且具有广泛的适用性,但估计仍然是一项困难的任务。该估计依赖于许多选择,每个选择都存在着从业者应该注意的陷阱。