The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Are Increasing 5-Year Survival Rates Evidence of Success Against Cancer?
Abstract
CONTEXT: Increased 5-year survival for cancer patients is generally inferred to mean that cancer treatment has improved and that fewer patients die of cancer. Increased 5-year survival, however, may also reflect changes in diagnosis: finding more people with early-stage cancer, including some who would never have become symptomatic from their cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship over time between 5-year cancer survival and 2 other measures of cancer burden, mortality and incidence. DESIGN AND SETTING: Using population-based statistics reported by the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, we calculated the change in 5-year survival from 1950 to 1995 for the 20 most common solid tumor types. Using the tumor as the unit of analysis, we correlated changes in 5-year survival with changes in mortality and incidence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The association between changes in 5-year survival and changes in mortality and incidence measured using simple correlation coefficients (Pearson and Spearman). RESULTS: From 1950 to 1995, there was an increase in 5-year survival for each of the 20 tumor types. The absolute increase in 5-year survival ranged from 3% (pancreatic cancer) to 50% (prostate cancer). During the same period, mortality rates declined for 12 types of cancer and increased for the remaining 8 types. There was little correlation between the change in 5-year survival for a specific tumor and the change in tumor-related mortality (Pearson r=.00; Spearman r=-.07). On the other hand, the change in 5-year survival was positively correlated with the change in the tumor incidence rate (Pearson r=+. 49; Spearman r=+.37). CONCLUSION: Although 5-year survival is a valid measure for comparing cancer therapies in a randomized trial, our analysis shows that changes in 5-year survival over time bear little relationship to changes in cancer mortality. Instead, they appear primarily related to changing patterns of diagnosis. JAMA. 2000.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Advances in diagnostic imaging and overestimations of disease prevalence and the benefits of therapy
Black, W. C., & Welch, H. G. (1993) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199304293281706 · Cited by 547
Cited by
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., & Jemal, A. (2020) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21590 · Cited by 20,444
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., & Jemal, A. (2019) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21551 · Cited by 20,160
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., Fuchs, H. E., & Jemal, A. (2021) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21654 · Cited by 16,522
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., Fuchs, H. E., & Jemal, A. (2022) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21708 · Cited by 17,196
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., & Jemal, A. (2018) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21442 · Cited by 16,579
Metadata
- Authors
- Welch, H. G.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2000-06-14
- Volume
- 283
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 2975
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2115402185
- Cited by
- 449
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Are Increasing 5-Year Survival Rates Evidence of Success Against Cancer? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.283.22.2975
- The paper
- Welch, H. G. (2000). Are Increasing 5-Year Survival Rates Evidence of Success Against Cancer? JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.22.2975
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.