Erkaya Metincan, Inal Ekin, Benlice Cigdem, Kuzu Mehmet Ayhan, Gorgun Emre
Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Department of General Surgery, School of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
J Surg Oncol. 2025 Jul;132(1):114-134. doi: 10.1002/jso.28141. Epub 2025 May 30.
The National Cancer Database (NCDB) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database are widely used in colon cancer research, particularly for analyzing overall survival (OS) rates. However, differences in demographics, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes across colon cancer stages and locations between these databases remain incompletely understood. Addressing these disparities is crucial for researchers when selecting the most appropriate registry for survival analysis.
This study aims to systematically compare patient characteristics, oncologic outcomes, and OS rates between NCDB and SEER across various tumor locations and disease stages in colon cancer.
We analyzed patients undergoing surgery for Stages I-IV primary colon cancer (2004-2019), comparing patient characteristics, oncologic outcomes, and OS rates across distinct tumor locations and cancer stages in NCDB and SEER. Our objective was to assess how differences in database structure and sampling methodologies influence reported survival outcomes.
The study included 777 827 patients (NCDB: 572 196; SEER: 205 631). Proximal colon cancers were more common in older and female patients in both databases, whereas distal colon cancers were more prevalent in younger patients. NCDB contained a slightly higher proportion of Caucasian patients, while SEER had a greater representation of Asian patients. Segmental resections were more frequent in SEER, with the highest weighted difference observed in sigmoid colon cancer (6.16%; 95% CI: 5.78%-6.54%). OS rates were generally comparable across databases, though minor variations were observed at different colonic locations and stages.
Despite differences in sampling techniques and follow-up reporting, NCDB and SEER demonstrated remarkable consistency in survival trends across colon cancer stages and locations. Recognizing these database-specific variations is essential for researchers conducting population-based survival analyses and selecting the most suitable registry for their studies. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD TO THE LITERATURE?: This study provides a comprehensive comparison of NCDB and SEER, highlighting how differences in sampling methodologies, follow-up reporting, and patient representation influence overall survival estimates in colon cancer. It clarifies why prior studies report conflicting survival trends and offers a methodological framework for researchers selecting the most appropriate database for their analysis.
国家癌症数据库(NCDB)和监测、流行病学及最终结果(SEER)数据库在结肠癌研究中被广泛使用,尤其是用于分析总生存率(OS)。然而,这些数据库在结肠癌不同阶段和部位的人口统计学、治疗模式及生存结果方面的差异仍未被完全理解。在选择最适合生存分析的登记处时,解决这些差异对研究人员至关重要。
本研究旨在系统比较NCDB和SEER在结肠癌不同肿瘤部位和疾病阶段的患者特征、肿瘤学结局及OS率。
我们分析了2004 - 2019年接受I - IV期原发性结肠癌手术的患者,比较了NCDB和SEER中不同肿瘤部位和癌症阶段的患者特征、肿瘤学结局及OS率。我们的目的是评估数据库结构和抽样方法的差异如何影响报告的生存结局。
该研究纳入了777827例患者(NCDB:572196例;SEER:205631例)。在两个数据库中,近端结肠癌在老年和女性患者中更为常见,而远端结肠癌在年轻患者中更为普遍。NCDB中白人患者的比例略高,而SEER中亚洲患者的占比更大。SEER中节段性切除术更为频繁,在乙状结肠癌中观察到的加权差异最大(6.16%;95%CI:5.78% - 6.54%)。尽管在不同结肠部位和阶段观察到了细微差异,但各数据库的OS率总体相当。
尽管抽样技术和随访报告存在差异,但NCDB和SEER在结肠癌各阶段和部位的生存趋势上表现出显著的一致性。认识到这些特定于数据库 的差异对于进行基于人群的生存分析并为其研究选择最合适登记处的研究人员至关重要。本文对文献有何贡献?:本研究对NCDB和SEER进行了全面比较,突出了抽样方法、随访报告和患者代表性方面的差异如何影响结肠癌的总生存估计。它阐明了为何先前的研究报告了相互矛盾的生存趋势,并为研究人员选择最合适的数据库进行分析提供了一个方法框架。