historical comparison of survivals why not but only under certain conditions

Background: Meanings, properties and possible implications of specific survival (SS) are worth exploring when computed from mortality tables, particularly by virtue of the relationship with excess mortality (ExcM) and expected mortality (ExpM). Design: The variability of specific mortality (SM) and ExpM reflects the whole range of patients’ fate, from the worst scenario (observed mortality higher than ExpM) to the best (SM equal to ExpM: a condition corresponding to full clinical recovery of the disease). Obviously, SM of patients and ExpM of reference population are conditioned by the same social and clinical factors, which act in parallel on both groups. So, the ExpM of reference subjects corresponds to the average age limit for a given histori cal period, to which the survival of patients can be normalized, also giving the possibility of post-hoc analysis of survival. SS, which results from the difference between observed and expected mortality, is also an index of the years of survival “stolen” by the disease with respect to the expected. All these times can be statistically compared by simple inferential tests. Results: As an example of achievable result, we report a comparative analysis of two randomized trials, conducted in different times and closed several years ago, with identical target patients (advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma) and similar treatment (MEC ten-drug chemotherapy in the first study, and the similar CEC in the second, in which cyclophosphamide 650 mg/m2 re placed mechlorethamine 6 mg/m2). The analysis of SS revealed a previously underestimated statistical difference in favor of the patients treated with CEC: the difference seems tom be primarily due to the drug substitution, in spite of their presumed equiva -lence. Years of life lost per year of follow-up in CEC arm: 0.148 ± 0.228; in MEC arm: 0.411± 0.528 (P= 0.02314). Conclusions: The comparative evaluation of SS offers more reliable results and is feasible in post-hoc investigations, even be tween different timeframes.

[1]  F. Angrilli,et al.  Long-Term Results of the HD2000 Trial Comparing ABVD Versus BEACOPP Versus COPP-EBV-CAD in Untreated Patients With Advanced Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Study by Fondazione Italiana Linfomi. , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[2]  R. Giorgi,et al.  A log‐rank‐type test to compare net survival distributions , 2016, Biometrics.

[3]  T. Hakulinen,et al.  Choosing the net survival method for cancer survival estimation. , 2015, European Journal of Cancer.

[4]  F. Bray,et al.  A comparison of relative and cause‐specific survival by cancer site, age and time since diagnosis , 2014, International journal of cancer.

[5]  Eric J Feuer,et al.  Secular trends in colon and rectal cancer relative survival. , 2013, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[6]  Janez Stare,et al.  On Estimation in Relative Survival , 2012, Biometrics.

[7]  T. Blakely,et al.  Measuring cancer survival in populations: relative survival vs cancer-specific survival. , 2010, International journal of epidemiology.

[8]  P. Gobbi,et al.  Long Term Follow-up Analysis of HD9601 Trial Comparing ABVD Vs Stanford V Vs MOPPABVCAD in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma. A Study from the Intergruppo Italiano Linfomi (IIL) , 2008 .

[9]  David R. Jones,et al.  Relative survival: what can cardiovascular disease learn from cancer? , 2008, European heart journal.

[10]  M. Davies,et al.  Clinicians didn't reliably distinguish between different causes of cardiac death using case histories. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[11]  P. Gobbi,et al.  Unlike ABVD and MOPPEBVCAD, Stanford V chemotherapy does not tollerate the combination with a reduced and conditioned radiotherapy for the treatment of advanced Hodgkin Lymphoma , 2006 .

[12]  P. Dickman,et al.  Estimating and modelling relative survival , 2004 .

[13]  E. Feuer,et al.  Cumulative cause-specific mortality for cancer patients in the presence of other causes: a crude analogue of relative survival. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  E J Topol,et al.  Cause of death in clinical research: time for a reassessment? , 1999, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[15]  M. Pike,et al.  Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. analysis and examples. , 1977, British Journal of Cancer.

[16]  F. Wilner,et al.  Combination chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced Hodgkin's disease. , 1975, Michigan medicine.

[17]  F. Ederer,et al.  The relative survival rate: a statistical methodology. , 1961, National Cancer Institute monograph.