Limits of observational data in determining outcomes from cancer therapy

Sharon H. Giordano, Yong Fang Kuo, Zhigang Duan, Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, Jean Freeman, James Goodwin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

131 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND. Observational data are used increasingly to assess the effectiveness of therapies. However, selection biases are likely to have an impact on results and threaten the validity of these studies. METHODS. The primary objective of the current study was to explore the effect of selection biases in observational studies of treatment effectiveness in cancer care. Patients were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database. The following groups of patients were included: 5245 men treated with and without androgen deprivation for locally advanced prostate cancer, 43,847 men with active treatment versus observation for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, and 4860 patients with lymph node-positive colon cancer who were treated with and without fluorouracil chemotherapy. Patients were compared by therapy for the outcomes of cancer-specific mortality, othercause mortality, and overall mortality. RESULTS. In all comparisons, the observational data produced improbable results. For example, when evaluating outcomes of men who were treated with and without androgen deprivation for locally advanced prostate cancer, men who underwent androgen deprivation had higher prostate cancer mortality (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.92) despite clinical trial evidence that this treatment improves cancer mortality. Controlling for comorbidity, extent of disease, and other characteristics by multivariate analyses or by propensity analyses had remarkably small impact on these improbable results. CONCLUSIONS. The current results suggested that the results from observational studies of treatment outcomes should be viewed with caution.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2456-2466
Number of pages11
JournalCancer
Volume112
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2008

Fingerprint

Prostatic Neoplasms
Mortality
Androgens
Selection Bias
Neoplasms
Observational Studies
Therapeutics
Medicare
Reproducibility of Results
Fluorouracil
Colonic Neoplasms
Comorbidity
Epidemiology
Multivariate Analysis
Lymph Nodes
Observation
Clinical Trials
Databases
Confidence Intervals
Drug Therapy

Keywords

  • Androgen deprivation
  • End Results
  • Epidemiology
  • Goserelin
  • Observational studies
  • Prostate cancer mortality
  • Selection bias
  • Surveillance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Limits of observational data in determining outcomes from cancer therapy. / Giordano, Sharon H.; Kuo, Yong Fang; Duan, Zhigang; Hortobagyi, Gabriel N.; Freeman, Jean; Goodwin, James.

In: Cancer, Vol. 112, No. 11, 01.06.2008, p. 2456-2466.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Giordano, SH, Kuo, YF, Duan, Z, Hortobagyi, GN, Freeman, J & Goodwin, J 2008, 'Limits of observational data in determining outcomes from cancer therapy', Cancer, vol. 112, no. 11, pp. 2456-2466. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23452
Giordano, Sharon H. ; Kuo, Yong Fang ; Duan, Zhigang ; Hortobagyi, Gabriel N. ; Freeman, Jean ; Goodwin, James. / Limits of observational data in determining outcomes from cancer therapy. In: Cancer. 2008 ; Vol. 112, No. 11. pp. 2456-2466.
@article{c43a44b7ba2a41e9afb40e22cce7e3a8,
title = "Limits of observational data in determining outcomes from cancer therapy",
abstract = "BACKGROUND. Observational data are used increasingly to assess the effectiveness of therapies. However, selection biases are likely to have an impact on results and threaten the validity of these studies. METHODS. The primary objective of the current study was to explore the effect of selection biases in observational studies of treatment effectiveness in cancer care. Patients were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database. The following groups of patients were included: 5245 men treated with and without androgen deprivation for locally advanced prostate cancer, 43,847 men with active treatment versus observation for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, and 4860 patients with lymph node-positive colon cancer who were treated with and without fluorouracil chemotherapy. Patients were compared by therapy for the outcomes of cancer-specific mortality, othercause mortality, and overall mortality. RESULTS. In all comparisons, the observational data produced improbable results. For example, when evaluating outcomes of men who were treated with and without androgen deprivation for locally advanced prostate cancer, men who underwent androgen deprivation had higher prostate cancer mortality (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95{\%} confidence interval, 1.29-1.92) despite clinical trial evidence that this treatment improves cancer mortality. Controlling for comorbidity, extent of disease, and other characteristics by multivariate analyses or by propensity analyses had remarkably small impact on these improbable results. CONCLUSIONS. The current results suggested that the results from observational studies of treatment outcomes should be viewed with caution.",
keywords = "Androgen deprivation, End Results, Epidemiology, Goserelin, Observational studies, Prostate cancer mortality, Selection bias, Surveillance",
author = "Giordano, {Sharon H.} and Kuo, {Yong Fang} and Zhigang Duan and Hortobagyi, {Gabriel N.} and Jean Freeman and James Goodwin",
year = "2008",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/cncr.23452",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "112",
pages = "2456--2466",
journal = "Cancer",
issn = "0008-543X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Limits of observational data in determining outcomes from cancer therapy

AU - Giordano, Sharon H.

AU - Kuo, Yong Fang

AU - Duan, Zhigang

AU - Hortobagyi, Gabriel N.

AU - Freeman, Jean

AU - Goodwin, James

PY - 2008/6/1

Y1 - 2008/6/1

N2 - BACKGROUND. Observational data are used increasingly to assess the effectiveness of therapies. However, selection biases are likely to have an impact on results and threaten the validity of these studies. METHODS. The primary objective of the current study was to explore the effect of selection biases in observational studies of treatment effectiveness in cancer care. Patients were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database. The following groups of patients were included: 5245 men treated with and without androgen deprivation for locally advanced prostate cancer, 43,847 men with active treatment versus observation for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, and 4860 patients with lymph node-positive colon cancer who were treated with and without fluorouracil chemotherapy. Patients were compared by therapy for the outcomes of cancer-specific mortality, othercause mortality, and overall mortality. RESULTS. In all comparisons, the observational data produced improbable results. For example, when evaluating outcomes of men who were treated with and without androgen deprivation for locally advanced prostate cancer, men who underwent androgen deprivation had higher prostate cancer mortality (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.92) despite clinical trial evidence that this treatment improves cancer mortality. Controlling for comorbidity, extent of disease, and other characteristics by multivariate analyses or by propensity analyses had remarkably small impact on these improbable results. CONCLUSIONS. The current results suggested that the results from observational studies of treatment outcomes should be viewed with caution.

AB - BACKGROUND. Observational data are used increasingly to assess the effectiveness of therapies. However, selection biases are likely to have an impact on results and threaten the validity of these studies. METHODS. The primary objective of the current study was to explore the effect of selection biases in observational studies of treatment effectiveness in cancer care. Patients were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database. The following groups of patients were included: 5245 men treated with and without androgen deprivation for locally advanced prostate cancer, 43,847 men with active treatment versus observation for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, and 4860 patients with lymph node-positive colon cancer who were treated with and without fluorouracil chemotherapy. Patients were compared by therapy for the outcomes of cancer-specific mortality, othercause mortality, and overall mortality. RESULTS. In all comparisons, the observational data produced improbable results. For example, when evaluating outcomes of men who were treated with and without androgen deprivation for locally advanced prostate cancer, men who underwent androgen deprivation had higher prostate cancer mortality (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.92) despite clinical trial evidence that this treatment improves cancer mortality. Controlling for comorbidity, extent of disease, and other characteristics by multivariate analyses or by propensity analyses had remarkably small impact on these improbable results. CONCLUSIONS. The current results suggested that the results from observational studies of treatment outcomes should be viewed with caution.

KW - Androgen deprivation

KW - End Results

KW - Epidemiology

KW - Goserelin

KW - Observational studies

KW - Prostate cancer mortality

KW - Selection bias

KW - Surveillance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=47249165270&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=47249165270&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/cncr.23452

DO - 10.1002/cncr.23452

M3 - Article

C2 - 18428196

AN - SCOPUS:47249165270

VL - 112

SP - 2456

EP - 2466

JO - Cancer

JF - Cancer

SN - 0008-543X

IS - 11

ER -