Evaluating comparative effectiveness with observational data: Endoscopic ultrasound and survival in pancreatic cancer

Cancer

Volumn 119, Issue 21, 2013, Pages 3861-3869

  Parmar, Abhishek D ^a,b   Sheffield, Kristin M ^a   Han, Yimei ^a   Vargas, Gabriela M ^a   Guturu, Praveen ^c   Kuo, Yong Fang ^c   Goodwin, James S ^c   Riall, Taylor S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c University of Texas Medical Branch School of Medicine   (United States)

Author keywords

endoscopic ultrasound; instrumental variable; pancreatic cancer; propensity score; selection bias

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ARTICLE; BILIARY STENT; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; CHARLSON COMORBIDITY INDEX; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; ENDOSCOPIC ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MARRIAGE; MEDICARE; OBSERVATIONAL METHOD; PANCREAS CANCER; PANCREAS RESECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL;

ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND; INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE; PANCREATIC CANCER; PROPENSITY SCORE; SELECTION BIAS;

ADENOCARCINOMA; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; ENDOSONOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY AS TOPIC; PANCREATIC NEOPLASMS; SEER PROGRAM; SELECTION BIAS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84886093019     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28295     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. National Cancer Institute. SEER-Medicare Publications by Journal & Year. http://healthservices.cancer.gov/seermedicare/overview/pubs-jour-year.php. Accessed March 2013.
2. Giordano SH, Kuo YF, Duan Z, Hortobagyi GN, Freeman J, Goodwin JS,. Limits of observational data in determining outcomes from cancer therapy. Cancer. 2008; 112: 2456-2466.
3. Jinkins LJ, Parmar AD, Han Y, et al. Current trends in preoperative biliary stenting in pancreatic cancer patients. Surgery. 2013; doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2013.03.016 (In Press).
4. Yoshinaga S, Suzuki H, Oda I, Saito Y,. Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. Dig Endosc. 2011; 23 (suppl 1): 29-33.
5. Tamm EP, Balachandran A, Bhosale PR, et al. Imaging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: update on staging/resectability. Radiol Clin North Am. 2012; 50: 407-428.
6. Chang KJ, Nguyen P, Erickson RA, Durbin TE, Katz KD,. The clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic carcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997; 45: 387-393.
7. Varadarajulu S, Eloubeidi MA,. The role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the evaluation of pancreatico-biliary cancer. Surg Clin North Am. 2010; 90: 251-263.
8. Ahmad NA, Lewis JD, Siegelman ES, Rosato EF, Ginsberg GG, Kochman ML,. Role of endoscopic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000; 95: 1926-1931.
9. Hawes RH,. The evolution of endoscopic ultrasound: improved imaging, higher accuracy for fine needle aspiration and the reality of endoscopic ultrasound-guided interventions. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2010; 26: 436-444.
10. Midwinter MJ, Beveridge CJ, Wilsdon JB, Bennett MK, Baudouin CJ, Charnley RM,. Correlation between spiral computed tomography, endoscopic ultrasonography and findings at operation in pancreatic and ampullary tumours. Br J Surg. 1999; 86: 189-193.
11. Hunt GC, Faigel DO,. Assessment of EUS for diagnosing, staging, and determining resectability of pancreatic cancer: a review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 55: 232-237.
12. Ngamruengphong S, Li F, Zhou Y, Chak A, Cooper GS, Das A,. EUS and survival in patients with pancreatic cancer: a population-based study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010; 72: 78-83.
13. National Cancer Institute. SEER-Medicare: Brief Description of the SEER-Medicare Database. http://healthservices.cancer.gov/seermedicare/overview/. Accessed December 2012.
14. D'Agostino RB,. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med. 1998; 17: 2265-2281.
15. Austin PC,. Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biom J. 2009; 51: 171-184.
16. Martens EP, Pestman WR, de Boer A, Belitser SV, Klungel OH,. Instrumental variables: application and limitations. Epidemiology. 2006; 17: 260-267.
17. Lu-Yao GL, Albertsen PC, Moore DF, et al. Survival following primary androgen deprivation therapy among men with localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2008; 300: 173-181.
18. Kuo YF, Montie JE, Shahinian VB,. Reducing bias in the assessment of treatment effectiveness: androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. Med Care. 2012; 50: 374-380.
19. Ahmad NA, Kochman ML, Ginsberg GG,. Practice patterns and attitudes toward the role of endoscopic ultrasound in staging of gastrointestinal malignancies: a survey of physicians and surgeons. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005; 100: 2662-2668.
20. Stürmer T, Joshi M, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Rothman KJ, Schneeweiss S,. A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59: 437-447.
21. Bosco JL, Silliman RA, Thwin SS, et al. A most stubborn bias: no adjustment method fully resolves confounding by indication in observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 64-74.
22. Hadley J, Yabroff KR, Barrett MJ, Penson DF, Saigal CS, Potosky AL,. Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments: evaluating statistical adjustments for confounding in observational data. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010; 102: 1780-1793.
23. Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Alter DA, Gottlieb DJ, Vermeulen MJ,. Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias: effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. JAMA. 2007; 297: 278-285.
24. Krumholz HM,. Real-world imperative of outcomes research. JAMA. 2011; 306: 754-755.
25. Wen SW, Hernandez R, Naylor CD,. Pitfalls in nonrandomized outcomes studies. The case of incidental appendectomy with open cholecystectomy. JAMA. 1995; 274: 1687-1691.