Cancer Survival at a Comprehensive Cancer Center Compared with Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Estimates
Salgia, R.; Alvarnas, J.; Trisal, V.; Vanderplas, A.; Li, X.; Arias-Romero, J.; Fricke, J.; Frankel, P.; Mambetsariev, I.; Rice, H.; Levine, H.; van den Brink, M. R. M.
Show abstract
BackgroundCancer Centers offer a comprehensive approach to cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment through tertiary services and by providing coordinated, personalized care. We investigated whether this approach results in significantly better patient outcomes at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCI-CCC), City of Hope (COH), versus the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) national database. MethodsPatient-level data were abstracted from the COH Cancer Registry and SEER*Stat software, respectively. The cohort included patients diagnosed with incident cancer from 2004 to 2020. Overall survival was analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. To reduce confounding from baseline differences, propensity score matching (PSM) methods were employed in a 1:5 ratio between COH and SEER, respectively, using age group at diagnosis category, gender, race, ethnicity, stage (for solid tumors), and diagnosis year. FindingsPatients treated at COH had significantly superior overall survival (OS) compared with those in the SEER cohort across all examined cancer types after multivariable adjustment for key baseline characteristics and in the PSM analyses. Median OS (when reached) was uniformly longer in the COH cohort compared with the SEER cohort in the full population adjusted model and in the PSM analyses. For the PSM analyses: non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) hazard ratio (HR) 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70-0.76), breast cancer HR 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78-0.86), prostate cancer HR 0.62 (95% CI: 0.58-0.65), colorectal cancer HR 0.74 (95% CI: 0.69-0.79), pancreatic cancer HR 0.75 (95% CI: 0.70-0.81), acute myeloid leukemia HR 0.79 (95% CI: 0.75-0.84), acute lymphoid leukemia HR 0.7 (95% CI: 0.69-0.87), and multiple myeloma HR 0.70 (95% CI: 0.66-0.76) (all p<0.001). In addition, notable findings included substantially lower mortality risk for patients with any of the studied advanced solid cancers, including stage IV NSCLC (HR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.67-0.75, p<0.001) and stage IV breast cancer (HR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.69-0.87, p<0.001). ConclusionsOur results revealed patient care at an individual NCI-CCC employing state-of-the-art therapies and modern care is associated with survival benefits for cancer patients. Patients had significantly superior OS in the COH cohort compared with the SEER cohort for most of the analyzed solid tumors assessed for each stage (I-IV) and for 3 major hematologic malignancies assessed by age group. Until randomized comparisons studies are possible and the SEER data becomes more comprehensive, the specific causes of the observed benefit and identifying patients that benefit most may be subject to considerable debate. Additional research can help determine with greater granularity the drivers of the survival benefit and highlight an opportunity to make adjusted survival outcomes more accessible to patients, complementing the data currently available because of price transparency mandates. Such efforts may help ensure that all patients benefit from precision medicine approaches.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- COVID-19 Outcomes in Patients with Cancer: Findings from the University of California Health System Database 96%
- Compassionate use of recombinant human IL-7-hyFc as a salvage treatment for restoring lymphopenia in patients with recurrent glioblastoma 92%
- Added-value of whole exome and RNA Sequencing in advanced and refractory cancer patients with no molecular-based treatment recommendation based on a 90-gene panel 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical activity of Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase (MAPK) inhibitors in patients with MAP2K1 (MEK1)-mutated metastatic cancers 94%
- Clinical activity of MAPK targeted therapies in patients with non-V600 BRAF mutant tumors 93%
- An Evidenced-Based Prior for Estimating the Treatment Effect of Phase III Randomized Trials in Oncology 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Efficacy of PD-(L)1 blockade monotherapy compared to PD-(L)1 blockade plus chemotherapy in first-line PD-L1-positive advanced lung adenocarcinomas: A cohort study 95%
- Predictive value of preclinical models for CAR-T cell therapy clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis 93%
- Tumor-agnostic transcriptome-based classifier identifies spatial infiltration patterns of CD8+ T cells in the tumor microenvironment and predicts clinical outcome in early- and late-phase clinical trials 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- NDRG1 expression is an independent prognostic factor in inflammatory breast cancer 93%
- Development of a Metastatic Uveal Melanoma Prognostic risk Score (MUMPS) for use in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors 93%
- Machine learning for prediction of immunotherapy efficacy in non-small cell lung cancer from simple clinical and biological data 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Missing data in the medical record for oncology patients: prevalence and association with outcomes 97%
- A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the global data involving 61,532 cancer patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection 94%
- The tumor burden of metastatic colorectal cancer patients at initial diagnosis, pre- versus post-Covid-19 lockdown 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.