The validity of the mortality to incidence ratio as a proxy for site-specific cancer survival

• Published in: European Journal of Public Health
• Main Authors: Asadzadeh Vostakolaei, F, Kos, Henrike, Heijnen, Maryska, Visser, O (Otto), Verbeek, ALM, Kiemeney, LALM
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: unknown
• Published: 2011
• Subjects: /dk/atira/pure/sustainabledevelopmentgoals/good_health_and_well_being; SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being; Norway; Iceland
• Online Access: https://pure.eur.nl/en/publications/7699b78d-31ee-4d34-8385-2bd13c90e731; https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckq120; http://hdl.handle.net/1765/30726

Background: The complement of the cancer mortality to incidence ratio [1 - (M/I)] has been suggested as a valid proxy for 5-year relative survival. Whether this suggestion holds true for all types of cancer has not yet been adequately evaluated. Methods: We used publicly available databases of cancer incidence, cancer mortality and relative survival to correlate relative survival estimates and 1 - (M/I) estimates from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the USA and the Netherlands. We visually examined for which tumour sites 5-year relative survival cannot simply be predicted by the 1 - (M/I) and evaluated similarities between countries. Results: Country-specific linear regression analyses show that there is no systematic bias in predicting 5-year relative survival by 1 - (M/I) in five countries. There is a small but significant systematic underestimation of survival from prognostically poor tumour sites in two countries. Furthermore, the 1 - (M/I) overestimates survival from oral cavity and liver cancer with > 10% in at least two of the seven countries. By contrast, the proxy underestimates survival from soft tissue, bone, breast, prostate and oesophageal cancer, multiple myeloma and leukaemia with > 10% in at least two of the seven countries. Conclusion: The 1 - (M/I) is a good approximation of the 5-year relative survival for most but not all tumour sites.