Comparing Survival Extrapolation within All-Cause and Relative Survival Frameworks by Standard Parametric Models and Flexible Parametric Spline Models Using the Swedish Cancer Registry.

BACKGROUND: In health technology assessment, restricted mean survival time and life expectancy are commonly evaluated. Parametric models are typically used for extrapolation. Spline models using a relative survival framework have been shown to estimate life expectancy of cancer patients more reliably; however, more research is needed to assess spline models using an all-cause survival framework and standard parametric models using a relative survival framework. AIM: To assess survival extrapolation using standard parametric models and spline models within relative survival and all-cause survival frameworks. METHODS: From the Swedish Cancer Registry, we identified patients diagnosed with 5 types of cancer (colon, breast, melanoma, prostate, and chronic myeloid leukemia) between 1981 and 1990 with follow-up until 2020. Patients were categorized into 15 cancer cohorts by cancer and age group (18-59, 60-69, and 70-99 y). We right-censored the follow-up at 2, 3, 5, and 10 y and fitted the parametric models within an all-cause and a relative survival framework to extrapolate to 10 y and lifetime in comparison with the observed Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. All cohorts were modeled with 6 standard parametric models (exponential, Weibull, Gompertz, log-logistic, log-normal, and generalized gamma) and 3 spline models (on hazard, odds, and normal scales). RESULTS: For predicting 10-y survival, spline models generally performed better than standard parametric models. However, using an all-cause or a relative survival framework did not show any distinct difference. For lifetime survival, extrapolating from a relative survival framework agreed better with the observed survival, particularly using spline models. CONCLUSIONS: For extrapolation to 10 y, we recommend spline models. For extrapolation to lifetime, we suggest extrapolating in a relative survival framework, especially using spline models. HIGHLIGHTS: For survival extrapolation to 10 y, spline models generally performed better than standard parametric models did. However, using an all-cause or a relative survival framework showed no distinct difference under the same parametric model.Survival extrapolation to lifetime within a relative survival framework agreed well with the observed data, especially using spline models.Extrapolating parametric models within an all-cause survival framework may overestimate survival proportions at lifetime; models for the relative survival approach may underestimate instead.

Including uncertainty of the expected mortality rates in the prediction of loss in life expectancy.

PURPOSE: This study introduces a novel method for estimating the variance of life expectancy since diagnosis (LEC) and loss in life expectancy (LLE) for cancer patients within a relative survival framework in situations where life tables based on the entire general population are not accessible. LEC and LLE are useful summary measures of survival in population-based cancer studies, but require information on the mortality in the general population. Our method addresses the challenge of incorporating the uncertainty of expected mortality rates when using a sample from the general population. METHODS: To illustrate the approach, we estimated LEC and LLE for patients diagnosed with colon and breast cancer in Sweden. General population mortality rates were based on a random sample drawn from comparators of a matched cohort. Flexible parametric survival models were used to model the mortality among cancer patients and the mortality in the random sample from the general population. Based on the models, LEC and LLE together with their variances were estimated. The results were compared with those obtained using fixed expected mortality rates. RESULTS: By accounting for the uncertainty of expected mortality rates, the proposed method ensures more accurate estimates of variances and, therefore, confidence intervals of LEC and LLE for cancer patients. This is particularly valuable for older patients and some cancer types, where underestimation of the variance can be substantial when the entire general population data are not accessible. CONCLUSION: The method can be implemented using existing software, making it accessible for use in various cancer studies. The provided example of Stata code further facilitates its adoption.

Assessing the impact of including variation in general population mortality on standard errors of relative survival and loss in life expectancy.

BACKGROUND: A relative survival approach is often used in population-based cancer studies, where other cause (or expected) mortality is assumed to be the same as the mortality in the general population, given a specific covariate pattern. The population mortality is assumed to be known (fixed), i.e. measured without uncertainty. This could have implications for the estimated standard errors (SE) of any measures obtained within a relative survival framework, such as relative survival (RS) ratios and the loss in life expectancy (LLE). We evaluated the existing approach to estimate SE of RS and the LLE in comparison to if uncertainty in the population mortality was taken into account. METHODS: The uncertainty from the population mortality was incorporated using parametric bootstrap approach. The analysis was performed with different levels of stratification and sizes of the general population used for creating expected mortality rates. Using these expected mortality rates, SEs of 5-year RS and the LLE for colon cancer patients in Sweden were estimated. RESULTS: Ignoring uncertainty in the general population mortality rates had negligible (less than 1%) impact on the SEs of 5-year RS and LLE, when the expected mortality rates were based on the whole general population, i.e. all people living in a country or region. However, the smaller population used for creating the expected mortality rates, the larger impact. For a general population reduced to 0.05% of the original size and stratified by age, sex, year and region, the relative precision for 5-year RS was 41% for males diagnosed at age 85. For the LLE the impact was more substantial with a relative precision of 1286%. The relative precision for marginal estimates of 5-year RS was 3% and 30% and for the LLE 22% and 313% when the general population was reduced to 0.5% and 0.05% of the original size, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: When the general population mortality rates are based on the whole population, the uncertainty in the estimates of the expected measures can be ignored. However, when based on a smaller population, this uncertainty should be taken into account, otherwise SEs may be too small, particularly for marginal values, and, therefore, confidence intervals too narrow.