| 付瑞瑛,梅 丹,王晓锋,等.Pohar Perme法估算净生存率的应用实践与评价[J].中国肿瘤,2023,32(2):98-103. |
| Pohar Perme法估算净生存率的应用实践与评价 |
| Application and Evaluation of Pohar Perme Method for Estimating Net Survival of Cancer Patients |
| 投稿时间：2022-11-13 |
| DOI：10.11735/j.issn.1004-0242.2023.02.A003 |
|
 |
| 中文关键词: 肿瘤登记 生存分析 净生存率 Pohar Perme法 |
| 英文关键词:cancer registry survival analysis net survival Pohar Perme method |
| 基金项目:国家重点研发计划（2022YFC3600805，2021YFC2501900）；中国医学科学院医学与健康科技创新工程（2021-I2M-1-010，2021-I2M-1-046）；中国医学科学院肿瘤医院人才激励计划 |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 460 |
| 全文下载次数: 304 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 摘 要：［目的］分别利用辽宁省大连市癌症患者数据和芬兰肿瘤登记处的结肠癌患者数据，应用Pohar Perme法估算癌症患者净生存率，并与Ederer Ⅱ法进行比较，评价Pohar Perme法在估算癌症患者净生存率时的应用价值。 ［方法］介绍Pohar Perme法估算净生存率的概念、方法及原理。基于辽宁省大连市肿瘤登记处2015年诊断的癌症患者随访至2020年12月31日的数据信息，估算患者5年净生存率；基于芬兰肿瘤登记处1975—1980年诊断的结肠癌患者随访至1995年12月31日的数据信息，估算患者10年和15年净生存率。比较Pohar Perme法和Ederer Ⅱ法的结果，并绘制生存曲线。 ［结果］研究纳入辽宁省大连市肿瘤登记处癌症患者11 320例，芬兰肿瘤登记处癌症患者3 471例。Pohar Perme法和Ederer Ⅱ法估算大连市癌症患者总体5年净生存率分别为53.1%和54.1%，标准误均为0.5%。Pohar Perme法和Ederer Ⅱ法估算芬兰结肠癌患者10年净生存率分别为36.7%、36.5%，标准误分别为1.4%和1.2%；Pohar Perme法和Ederer Ⅱ法估算芬兰结肠癌患者15年净生存率分别为37.0%和36.0%，标准误分别为2.6%和1.4%。净生存率曲线显示随访5年时，两种方法结果相近。［结论］ Pohar Perme法在估算5年净生存率时与Ederer Ⅱ法结果极为接近。在估算长期净生存率（≥10年）时，Pohar Perme法的标准误比Ederer Ⅱ法大。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Abstract： ［Purpose］ To apply Pohar Perme method for estimating the net survival of cancer patients and to evaluate its utilization. ［Methods］ The 5-year net survival was estimated using the data of cancer patients collected from Dalian Cancer Registry in 2015， who were followed up until December 31st， 2020. The 10- and 15-year net survival was estimated using data of cancer patients collected from Finnish Cancer Registry during 1975—1980， who were followed up until December 31st， 1995. The results obtained from Pohar Perme and Ederer Ⅱ methods were compared and the survival curves were plotted. ［Results］ This study included 11 320 cancer patients from Dalian Cancer Registry and 3 471 cancer patients from Finnish Cancer Registry. The 5-year net survival for patients from Dalian Cancer Registry using Pohar Perme and Ederer Ⅱ methods were 53.1% (SE=0.5%) and 54.1% (SE=0.5%)， respectively. The 10-year net survival using Pohar Perme and Ederer Ⅱ methods for patients diagnosed with colon cancer from Finnish Cancer Registry were 36.7% （SE=1.4%） and 36.5% （SE=1.2%）， respectively. The 15-year net survival using Pohar Perme and Ederer Ⅱ methods for patients from Finnish Cancer Registry were 37.0% （SE=2.6%） and 36.0% （SE=1.4%）， respectively. Survival curves showed minimal difference in the first 5 years between two methods. ［Conclusion］ Pohar Perme method can estimate 5-year net survival well. In longer follow-up(≥10 years)， the standard error of Pohar Perme method is higher than that of Ederer Ⅱ method. |
|
在线阅读
查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |