IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i3p269-282.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Enoch Yi-Tung Chen

    (Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Yuliya Leontyeva

    (Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Chia-Ni Lin

    (Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan)

  • Jung-Der Wang

    (Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
    Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan)

  • Mark S. Clements

    (Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Paul W. Dickman

    (Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Enoch Yi-Tung Chen & Yuliya Leontyeva & Chia-Ni Lin & Jung-Der Wang & Mark S. Clements & Paul W. Dickman, 2024. "Comparing Survival Extrapolation within All-Cause and Relative Survival Frameworks by Standard Parametric Models and Flexible Parametric Spline Models Using the Swedish Cancer Registry," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(3), pages 269-282, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:3:p:269-282
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241227230
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241227230
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X241227230?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:3:p:269-282. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.