Cited by 23Global Cancer Incidence and ScreeningInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Combining cohort and period methods for retrospective time trend analyses of long-term cancer patient survival rates

Open access
Brenner, H, Spix, C·2003·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

Assessing trends in long-term cancer patient survival is an essential component of monitoring progress against cancer by cancer registries. Traditional assessment of long-term survival ('cohort analysis') is very useful to disclose trends in long-term survival rates of patients diagnosed many years ago, but it does not allow the disclosure of recent trends in long-term survival rates. The latter can be achieved by an alternative method of survival analysis ('period analysis'), which has been proposed a few years ago. On the other hand, unlike cohort analysis, period analysis does not provide estimates of long-term survival rates for patients diagnosed in the early years after initiation of cancer registration. In this paper, a method of retrospective analysis of time trends in long-term survival rates is introduced, which combines the advantages of both cohort and period analysis ('mixed analysis'). This method thereby allows for a comprehensive monitoring of trends in long-term survival over an extended time span from the earliest to the most recent years of cancer registration. The use of the method is illustrated for retrospective time trend analyses of long-term survival of cancer patients in the United States with the 1973-1999 database of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program of the National Cancer Institute.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601295

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brenner, H., & Spix, C.
Affiliations
Heidelberg University (DE)
Corresponding author
Brenner, H
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2003-09-30
Volume
89
Issue
7
Pages
1260-1265
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2004495081
Cited by
23
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Insurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
cancer survival trends, cohort analysis, period analysis, cancer registry, SEER database
MeSH terms
Demography, Female, Humans, Male, Neoplasms, Prognosis, Registries, Retrospective Studies, Time Factors, United States, Cohort Studies, Survival Rate, Databases, Factual, Survivors, SEER Program

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