Time-varying associations of patient and tumor characteristics with cancer survival: an analysis of SEER data across 14 cancer sites, 2004-2017.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registries provides information about survival duration and cause of death for cancer patients. Baseline demographic and tumor characteristics such as age, sex, race, year of diagnosis, and tumor stage can inform the expected survival time of patients, but their associations with survival may not be constant over the post-diagnosis period. METHODS: Using SEER data, we examined if there were time-varying associations of patient and tumor characteristics on survival, and we assessed how these relationships differed across 14 cancer sites. Standard Cox proportional hazards models were extended to allow for time-varying associations and incorporated into a competing-risks framework, separately modeling cancer-specific and other-cause deaths. For each cancer site and for each of the five factors, we estimated the relative hazard ratio and absolute hazard over time in the presence of competing risks. RESULTS: Our comprehensive consideration of patient and tumor characteristics when estimating time-varying hazards showed that the associations of age, tumor stage at diagnosis, and race/ethnicity with risk of death (cancer-specific and other-cause) change over time for many cancers; characteristics of sex and year of diagnosis exhibit some time-varying patterns as well. Stage at diagnosis had the largest associations with survival. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that proportional hazards assumptions are often violated when examining patient characteristics on cancer survival post-diagnosis. We discuss several interesting results where the relative hazards are time-varying and suggest possible interpretations. Based on the time-varying associations of several important covariates on survival after cancer diagnosis using a pan-cancer approach, the likelihood of the proportional hazards assumption being met or corresponding interpretation should be considered in survival analyses, as flawed inference may have implications for cancer care and policy.