A Methodological and Survival Comparison of NCDB and SEER Database for Colon Cancer Research.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Metincan Erkaya, Ekin Inal, Cigdem Benlice, Mehmet Ayhan Kuzu, Emre Gorgun
{"title":"A Methodological and Survival Comparison of NCDB and SEER Database for Colon Cancer Research.","authors":"Metincan Erkaya, Ekin Inal, Cigdem Benlice, Mehmet Ayhan Kuzu, Emre Gorgun","doi":"10.1002/jso.28141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The National Cancer Database (NCDB) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database are widely used in colon cancer research, particularly for analyzing overall survival (OS) rates. However, differences in demographics, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes across colon cancer stages and locations between these databases remain incompletely understood. Addressing these disparities is crucial for researchers when selecting the most appropriate registry for survival analysis.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to systematically compare patient characteristics, oncologic outcomes, and OS rates between NCDB and SEER across various tumor locations and disease stages in colon cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed patients undergoing surgery for Stages I-IV primary colon cancer (2004-2019), comparing patient characteristics, oncologic outcomes, and OS rates across distinct tumor locations and cancer stages in NCDB and SEER. Our objective was to assess how differences in database structure and sampling methodologies influence reported survival outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 777 827 patients (NCDB: 572 196; SEER: 205 631). Proximal colon cancers were more common in older and female patients in both databases, whereas distal colon cancers were more prevalent in younger patients. NCDB contained a slightly higher proportion of Caucasian patients, while SEER had a greater representation of Asian patients. Segmental resections were more frequent in SEER, with the highest weighted difference observed in sigmoid colon cancer (6.16%; 95% CI: 5.78%-6.54%). OS rates were generally comparable across databases, though minor variations were observed at different colonic locations and stages.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite differences in sampling techniques and follow-up reporting, NCDB and SEER demonstrated remarkable consistency in survival trends across colon cancer stages and locations. Recognizing these database-specific variations is essential for researchers conducting population-based survival analyses and selecting the most suitable registry for their studies. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD TO THE LITERATURE?: This study provides a comprehensive comparison of NCDB and SEER, highlighting how differences in sampling methodologies, follow-up reporting, and patient representation influence overall survival estimates in colon cancer. It clarifies why prior studies report conflicting survival trends and offers a methodological framework for researchers selecting the most appropriate database for their analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":17111,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Surgical Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Surgical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.28141","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database are widely used in colon cancer research, particularly for analyzing overall survival (OS) rates. However, differences in demographics, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes across colon cancer stages and locations between these databases remain incompletely understood. Addressing these disparities is crucial for researchers when selecting the most appropriate registry for survival analysis.

Objectives: This study aims to systematically compare patient characteristics, oncologic outcomes, and OS rates between NCDB and SEER across various tumor locations and disease stages in colon cancer.

Methods: We analyzed patients undergoing surgery for Stages I-IV primary colon cancer (2004-2019), comparing patient characteristics, oncologic outcomes, and OS rates across distinct tumor locations and cancer stages in NCDB and SEER. Our objective was to assess how differences in database structure and sampling methodologies influence reported survival outcomes.

Results: The study included 777 827 patients (NCDB: 572 196; SEER: 205 631). Proximal colon cancers were more common in older and female patients in both databases, whereas distal colon cancers were more prevalent in younger patients. NCDB contained a slightly higher proportion of Caucasian patients, while SEER had a greater representation of Asian patients. Segmental resections were more frequent in SEER, with the highest weighted difference observed in sigmoid colon cancer (6.16%; 95% CI: 5.78%-6.54%). OS rates were generally comparable across databases, though minor variations were observed at different colonic locations and stages.

Conclusion: Despite differences in sampling techniques and follow-up reporting, NCDB and SEER demonstrated remarkable consistency in survival trends across colon cancer stages and locations. Recognizing these database-specific variations is essential for researchers conducting population-based survival analyses and selecting the most suitable registry for their studies. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD TO THE LITERATURE?: This study provides a comprehensive comparison of NCDB and SEER, highlighting how differences in sampling methodologies, follow-up reporting, and patient representation influence overall survival estimates in colon cancer. It clarifies why prior studies report conflicting survival trends and offers a methodological framework for researchers selecting the most appropriate database for their analysis.

NCDB和SEER数据库结肠癌研究的方法学和生存率比较。
背景:国家癌症数据库(NCDB)和监测、流行病学和最终结果(SEER)数据库广泛用于结肠癌研究,特别是分析总生存率(OS)。然而,这些数据库在不同结肠癌分期和位置的人口统计学、治疗模式和生存结果方面的差异仍然不完全清楚。研究人员在选择最合适的生存分析登记时,解决这些差异是至关重要的。目的:本研究旨在系统地比较NCDB和SEER在不同肿瘤部位和疾病分期的结肠癌患者特征、肿瘤预后和OS率。方法:我们分析了2004-2019年接受手术治疗的I-IV期原发性结肠癌患者,比较了NCDB和SEER中不同肿瘤部位和癌症分期的患者特征、肿瘤预后和OS率。我们的目的是评估数据库结构和抽样方法的差异如何影响报告的生存结果。结果:纳入777827例患者(NCDB: 572 196例;预言家:205 631)。在两个数据库中,近端结肠癌在老年人和女性患者中更为常见,而远端结肠癌在年轻患者中更为普遍。NCDB中白人患者的比例略高,而SEER中亚洲患者的比例更高。节段性切除术在SEER中更为常见,乙状结肠的加权差异最大(6.16%;95% ci: 5.78% ~ 6.54%)。虽然在不同的结肠位置和阶段观察到微小的变化,但在不同的数据库中,OS率通常是可比较的。结论:尽管取样技术和随访报告存在差异,NCDB和SEER在结肠癌分期和部位的生存趋势上表现出显著的一致性。认识到这些数据库特定的变化对于研究人员进行基于人群的生存分析和为他们的研究选择最合适的注册表是必不可少的。这篇论文对文献有何补充?本研究提供了NCDB和SEER的全面比较,强调了抽样方法、随访报告和患者代表的差异如何影响结肠癌的总体生存估计。它澄清了为什么先前的研究报告了相互矛盾的生存趋势,并为研究人员选择最合适的数据库进行分析提供了一个方法框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
367
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Surgical Oncology offers peer-reviewed, original papers in the field of surgical oncology and broadly related surgical sciences, including reports on experimental and laboratory studies. As an international journal, the editors encourage participation from leading surgeons around the world. The JSO is the representative journal for the World Federation of Surgical Oncology Societies. Publishing 16 issues in 2 volumes each year, the journal accepts Research Articles, in-depth Reviews of timely interest, Letters to the Editor, and invited Editorials. Guest Editors from the JSO Editorial Board oversee multiple special Seminars issues each year. These Seminars include multifaceted Reviews on a particular topic or current issue in surgical oncology, which are invited from experts in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信