Back

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.

2025-09-08 oncology
10.1101/2025.09.05.25335204 medRxiv
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.

1
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.8%
2
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
9.8%
3
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.2%
4
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 29%
6.2%
6
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.9%
50% of probability mass above
7
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
8
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.5%
9
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
10
Cancer Letters
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.8%
11
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.3%
12
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.3%
13
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 52%
2.0%
14
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.0%
15
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
16
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
17
European Journal of Cancer
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.6%
18
Cancer Research Communications
46 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.4%
19
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
20
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
21
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 54%
0.9%
22
Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
64 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
23
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
24
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
25
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
26
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 62%
0.8%
27
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
28
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.7%