Validity of using cancer registry data for comparative effectiveness research
Zachary D Guss,
Patrick T Courtney,
Reith R Sarkar,
Matthew P Banegas,
Brent S Rose,
James D. Murphy
Posted 02 Nov 2019
medRxiv DOI: 10.1101/19010876
Posted 02 Nov 2019
PurposeResearchers often analyze cancer registry data to assess for differences in survival among cancer treatments. However, the retrospective non-random design of these analyses raise questions about study validity. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which comparative effectiveness analyses using cancer registry data produces results concordant with randomized clinical trials. MethodsWe identified 141 randomized clinical trials referenced in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines for 8 common solid tumor types. For each trial we identified subjects from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) matching the eligibility criteria of the randomized trial. With each trial we used three Cox regression models to determine hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival including univariable, multivariable, and propensity score adjusted models. Multivariable and propensity score analyses controlled for potential confounders including demographic, comorbidity, clinical, treatment, and tumor-related variables. Each NCDB survival analysis was defined as discordant if the HR for the NCDB analysis fell outside the 95% confidence interval of the corresponding randomized trial. ResultsNCDB analyses produced HRs for survival discordant with randomized trials in 62 (44%) univariable analyses, 43 (30%) multivariable analyses, and 51 (36%) propensity score models. NCDB analyses produced p-values discordant with randomized trials in 83 (59%) univariable analyses, 76 (54%) multivariable analyses, and 78 (55%) propensity score models. We did not identify any clinical trial characteristic associated with discordance between NCDB analyses and randomized trials including disease site, type of clinical intervention, or severity of cancer. ConclusionComparative effectiveness research with cancer registry data often produces survival outcomes discordant to randomized clinical data. These findings help provide context for providers interpreting observational comparative effectiveness research in oncology.
- Downloaded 250 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 96,379
- In oncology: 177
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 90,662
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 74,995
Downloads over time
Distribution of downloads per paper, site-wide
- 27 Nov 2020: The website and API now include results pulled from medRxiv as well as bioRxiv.
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!