International comparisons of survival from lung cancer: pitfalls and warnings

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Population-based survival data can provide valuable comparative data on outcome but should be interpreted with caution. Ideally, data from the whole population, including clinical-only diagnoses, should be reported and the methods of case identification described. Erridge et al. highlight the need for methods of data collection and comparison to be as similar as possible, and for important factors related to the patient, tumor characteristics and treatment that might impact outcome to be reported. Population-based survival data can provide valuable comparative data on outcome but should be interpreted with caution. Differences in data collection and analysis, patient and tumor characteristics and treatment options can have an impact on reported results. Ideally, data from the whole population, including clinical-only diagnoses, should be reported and the methods of case identification described. The relative survival rates should preferably be given. Data on patient characteristics such as age, sex, ethnicity and socioeconomic deprivation should be described, together with tumor details such as pathology and clinical stage. Whenever possible, details on the use of treatments should be reported.