Cited by 473Global Cancer Incidence and ScreeningCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsCancer Diagnosis and Treatment

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program and Pathology: Toward Strengthening the Critical Relationship

Open access
Duggan, Máire A., Anderson, William F., Altekruse, Sean, Penberthy, Lynne, Sherman, Mark E.·2016·American Journal of Surgical Pathology

Abstract

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program of the National Cancer Institute collects data on cancer diagnoses, treatment, and survival for approximately 30% of the United States (US) population. To reflect advances in research and oncology practice, approaches to cancer control are evolving from simply enumerating the development of cancers by organ site in populations to including monitoring of cancer occurrence by histopathologic and molecular subtype, as defined by driver mutations and other alterations. SEER is an important population-based resource for understanding the implications of pathology diagnoses across demographic groups, geographic regions, and time and provides unique insights into the practice of oncology in the US that are not attainable from other sources. It provides incidence, survival, and mortality data for histopathologic cancer subtypes, and data by molecular subtyping are expanding. The program is developing systems to capture additional biomarker data, results from special populations, and expand biospecimen banking to enable cutting-edge cancer research and oncology practice. Pathology has always been central and critical to the effectiveness of SEER, and strengthening this relationship in this modern era of cancer diagnosis could be mutually beneficial. Achieving this goal requires close interactions between pathologists and the SEER program. This review provides a brief overview of SEER, focuses on facets relevant to pathology practice and research, and highlights the opportunities and challenges for pathologists to benefit from and enhance the value of SEER data.

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 · 10.1097/pas.0000000000000749

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • Early detection, diagnosis, and treatment are crucial to the survival outcomes of esophageal cancer, and the 5-year survival rate of early-stage patients can exceed 95%.

    “Early detection, diagnosis, and treatment are crucial to the survival outcomes of esophageal cancer, and the 5-year survival rate of early-stage patients can exceed 95% [6].”

    From Symptom Experiences before Medical Help-Seeking and Psychosocial Responses of Patients with Esophageal Cancer: A Qualitative Study. (2023) · cites this paper as [6]

    The SEER Data Analyses section says survival can reflect early detection or better treatment, which supports the general connection. It does not address esophageal cancer specifically or report a five-year survival rate exceeding 95% for early-stage patients; the Birth Cohort-Effect and Calendar-Period Effect section also cautions that earlier detection can inflate survival estimates without changing mortality. No page numbers were provided for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Duggan, M. A., Anderson, W. F., Altekruse, S., Penberthy, L., & Sherman, M. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (US)
  • Cancer Control and Populations Sciences
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Duggan, Máire A.
Venue
American Journal of Surgical Pathology
Published
2016-12
Volume
40
Issue
12
Pages
e94-e102
ISSN
0147-5185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2530755795
Cited by
472
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 72 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 62 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The American Journal of Surgical Pathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (Z99 CA999999)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
cancer pathology, histological subtypes, molecular subtypes, driver mutations, cancer incidence, cancer survival, cancer mortality, biomarker data, cancer control
MeSH terms
Humans, Medical Oncology, Neoplasms, Pathology, Clinical, Biomarkers, Tumor, United States, SEER Program, Interdisciplinary Communication, Pathology, Molecular

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