Relative survival methods are crucial with data in which the cause of death information is either not given or inaccurate, but cause-specific information is nevertheless required. This methodology is standard in cancer registry data analysis and can also be found in other areas. The idea of relative survival is to join the observed data with the general mortality population data and thus extract the information on the disease-specific hazard. While this idea is clear and easy to understand, the practical implementation of the estimators is rather complex since the population hazard for each individual depends on demographic variables and changes in time. A considerable advance in the methodology of this field has been observed in the past decade and while some methods represent only a modification of existing estimators, others require newly programmed functions. The package relsurv covers all the steps of the analysis, from importing the general population tables to estimating and plotting the results. The syntax mimics closely that of the classical survival packages like survival and cmprsk, thus enabling the users to directly use its functions without any further familiarization. In this paper we focus on the nonparametric relative survival analysis, and in particular, on the two key estimators for net survival and crude probability of death. Both estimators were first presented in our package and are still missing in many other software packages, a fact which greatly...
COBISS.SI-ID: 34065113
A common goal in the analysis of the long-term survival related to a specific disease is to estimate a measure that is comparable between populations with different general population mortality. When cause of death is unavailable or unreliable, as for example in cancer registry studies, relative survival methodology is used%in addition to the mortality data of the patients, we use the data on the mortality of the general population. In this article, we focus on the marginal relative survival measure that summarizes the information about the disease-specific hazard. Under additional assumptions about latent times to death of each cause, this measure equals net survival. We propose a new approach to estimation based on pseudo-observations and derive two estimators of its variance. The properties of the new approach are assessed both theoretically and with simulations, showing practically no bias and a close to nominal coverage of the confidence intervals with the precise formula for the variance. The approximate formula for the variance has sufficiently good performance in large samples where the precise formula calculation becomes computationally intensive. Using bladder cancer data and simulations, we show that the behavior of the new approach is very close to that of the Pohar Perme estimator but has the important advantage of a simpler formula that does not require numerical integration and therefore lends itself more naturally to further extensions.
COBISS.SI-ID: 33683673
Relative survival analysis is a subfield of survival analysis where competing risks data are observed, but the causes of death are unknown. A first step in the analysis of such data is usually the estimation of a net survival curve, possibly followed by regression modelling. Recently, a log-rank type test for comparison of net survival curves has been introduced and the goal of this paper is to explore its properties and put this methodological advance into the context of the field. We build on the association between the log-rank test and the univariate or stratified Cox model and show the analogy in the relative survival setting. We study the properties of the methods using both the theoretical arguments as well as simulations. We provide an R function to enable practical usage of the log-rank type test. Both the log-rank type test and its model alternatives perform satisfactory under the null, even if the correlation between their p-values is rather low, implying that both approaches cannot be used simultaneously. The stratified version has a higher power in case of non-homogeneous hazards, but also carries a different interpretation. The log-rank type test and its stratified version can be interpreted in the same way as the results of an analogous semi-parametric additive regression model despite the fact that no direct theoretical link can be established between the test statistics.
COBISS.SI-ID: 33211609
Background The relative survival field has seen a lot of development in the last decade, resulting in many different and even opposing suggestions on how to approach the analysis. Methods We carefully define and explain the differences between the various measures of survival (overall survival, crude mortality, net survival and relative survival ratio) and study their differences using colon and prostate cancer data extracted from the national population-based cancer registry of Slovenia as well as simulated data. Results The colon and prostate cancer data demonstrate clearly that when analysing population-based data, it is useful to split the overall mortality in crude probabilities of dying from cancer and from other causes. Complemented by net survival, it provides a complete picture of cancer survival in a given population. But when comparisons of different populations as defined for example by place or time are of interest, our simulated data demonstrate that net survival is the only measure to be used. Conclusions The choice of the method should be done in two steps: first, one should determine the measure of interest and second, one should choose among the methods that estimate that measure consistently.
COBISS.SI-ID: 33117913
The availability of longstanding collection of detailed cancer patient information makes multivariable modelling of cancer-specific hazard of death appealing. We propose to report variation in survival explained by each variable that constitutes these models. We adapted the ranks explained (RE) measure to the relative survival data setting, ie, when competing risks of death are accounted for through life tables from the general population. RE is calculated at each event time. We introduce weights for each death reflecting its probability to be a cancer death. RE varies between -1 and +1 and can be reported at given times in the follow-up and as a time-varying measure from diagnosis onward. We present an application for patients diagnosed with colon or lung cancer in England. The RE measure shows reasonable properties and is comparable in both relative and cause-specific settings. One year after diagnosis, RE for the most complex excess hazard models reaches 0.56, 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.58 (0.58 95% CI: 0.56-0.60) and 0.69, 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.70 (0.67, 95% CI: 0.66-0.69) for lung and colon cancer men (women), respectively. Stage at diagnosis accounts for 12.4% (10.8%) of the overall variation in survival among lung cancer patients whereas it carries 61.8% (53.5%) of the survival variation in colon cancer patients. Variables other than performance status for lung cancer (10%) contribute very little to the overall explained variation. The proportion of the variation in survival...
COBISS.SI-ID: 33726425