Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2014 Nov;2014(49):218-27. doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgu017.

The impact of state-specific life tables on relative survival.

Author information

1
Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, Division of Cancer Epidemiology, Department of Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ (AMS); Data Modeling Branch, Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health Bethesda, MD (HC, AM); Division of Cancer Registration and Surveillance, National Cancer Center, Goyang-si Gyeonggi-do, Korea (HC); Information Management Services, Inc., Calverton, MD (SS); Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA (HKW). nan.stroup@rutgers.edu.
2
Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, Division of Cancer Epidemiology, Department of Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ (AMS); Data Modeling Branch, Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health Bethesda, MD (HC, AM); Division of Cancer Registration and Surveillance, National Cancer Center, Goyang-si Gyeonggi-do, Korea (HC); Information Management Services, Inc., Calverton, MD (SS); Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA (HKW).

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Relative survival is based on estimating excess cancer mortality in a study population compared to expected mortality of a comparable population without cancer. In the United States, expected mortality is estimated from national life tables matched by age, sex, race, and calendar year to each individual in the study population. We compared five-year relative survival using state life tables to five-year relative survival using US decennial life tables. We assessed variations by age, race, and cancer site for all cancers combined, lung, colorectal, prostate, and female breast cancers.

METHODS:

We used data from 17 National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program registries, including diagnoses from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009 with follow-up through December 31, 2010. Five-year relative survival was calculated using US-based life tables (USLT) and state-specific life tables (SLT).

RESULTS:

Differences in SLT- and USLT-based survival were generally small (SLT < 4 survival percentage points lower than USLT). Differences were higher for states with high SES and low mortality and for prostate cancer. Differences were largest for all cancers combined, colon and rectum, and prostate cancer among males aged 85+ ranging from -10 to -17 survival points for whites and +9 to +17 for blacks.

CONCLUSION:

Differences between relative survival based on USLT and SLT were small and state-based estimates were less reliable than US-based estimates for older populations aged 85+. Our findings underscore the need to develop more appropriate life tables that better represent the varying mortality patterns in different populations in order to obtain accurate estimates of relative survival.

PMID:
25417235
PMCID:
PMC4558894
DOI:
10.1093/jncimonographs/lgu017
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Silverchair Information Systems Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center