Impact of the Management and Proportion of Lost to Follow-Up Cases on Cancer Survival Estimates for Small Population-Based Cancer Registries

Abstract

Background. Estimation of survival requires follow-up of patients from diagnosis until death ensuring complete and good quality data. Many population-based cancer registries in low- and middle-income countries have difficulties linking registry data with regional or national vital statistics, increasing the chances of cases lost to follow-up. The impact of lost to follow-up cases on survival estimates from small population-based cancer registries (<500 cases) has been understudied, and bias could be larger than in larger registries. Methods. We simulated scenarios based on idealized real data from three population-based cancer registries to assess the impact of loss to follow-up on 1-5-year overall and net survival for stomach, colon, and thyroid cancers—cancer types with very different prognosis. Multiple scenarios with varying of lost to follow-up proportions (1-20%) and sample sizes of (100-500 cases) were carried out. We investigated the impact of excluding versus censoring lost to follow-up cases; punctual and bootstrap confidence intervals for the average bias are presented. Results. Censoring of lost to follow-up cases lead to overestimation of the overall survival, this effect was strongest for cancers with a poor prognosis and increased with follow-up time and higher proportion of lost to follow-up cases; these effects were slightly larger for net survival than overall survival. Excluding cases lost to follow-up did not generate a bias on survival estimates on average, but in individual cases, there were under- and overestimating survival. For gastric, colon, and thyroid cancer, relative bias on 5-year cancer survival with 1% of lost to follow-up varied between 6% and 125%, 2% and 40%, and 0.1% and 1.0%, respectively. Conclusion. Estimation of cancer survival from small population-based registries must be interpreted with caution: even small proportions of censoring, or excluding lost to follow-up cases can inflate survival, making it hard to interpret comparison across regions or countries.

FGFR1–4 RNA-Based Gene Alteration and Expression Analysis in Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

“…OS is a widely used endpoint for assessing the prognostic value of studied variables. However, censoring patients at death or the date of last follow-up (for OS), especially in groups with a small number of observations, can lead to an overestimation of OS [39]. In the present study, only DFS (i.e., the time to cancer recurrence or death from any cause) was analyzed.…”

Descriptive Epidemiology of Melanoma Diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 in a Colombian Cancer Registry and a Call for Improving Available Data on Melanoma in Latin America

“…The quality of vital statistics is reasonable, if only the date of death is needed [15]. The date of last contact for those who are not deceased was the date of consultation of the various databases in Colombia which contain information on use of the health system (RUAF, FOSYGA and the database of the "comprobador de derechos" [checking of rights] of the departmental health secretary), which were accessed using the personal identification number of the patients [16].…”

Post-discharge follow-up of patients with spine trauma in the National Spinal Cord Injury Registry of Iran during the COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges and lessons learned

“… 11 The latter 2 are stated as common challenges for all prospective studies such as registries-based observational studies, cohorts, and clinical trials. 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 …”