Radical cystectomy versus bladder-preserving therapy for muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma: examining confounding and misclassification biasin cancer observational comparative effectiveness research

根治性膀胱切除术与膀胱保留疗法治疗肌层浸润性尿路上皮癌:癌症观察性比较疗效研究中混杂因素和分类错误偏倚的检验

阅读:2

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Radical cystectomy (RC) is the standard treatment for muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Trimodality bladder-preserving therapy (BPT) is an alternative to RC, but randomized comparisons of RC versus BPT have proven infeasible. To compare RC versus BPT, we undertook an observational cohort study using registry and administrative claims data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database. METHODS: We identified patients age 65 years or older diagnosed between 1995 and 2005 who received RC (n = 1426) or BPT (n = 417). We examined confounding and stage misclassification in the comparison of RC and BPT by using multivariable adjustment, propensity score-based adjustment, instrumental variable (IV) analysis, and simulations. RESULTS: Patients who received BPT were older and more likely to have comorbid disease. After propensity score adjustment, BPT was associated with an increased hazard of death from any cause (hazard ratio [HR] 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.53) and from bladder cancer (HR 1.31; 95% CI 0.97-1.77). Using the local area cystectomy rate as an instrument, IV analysis demonstrated no differences in survival between BPT and RC (death from any cause HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.78-1.31; death from bladder cancer HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.55-1.18). Simulation studies for stage misclassification yielded results consistent with the IV analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Survival estimates in an observational cohort of patients who underwent RC versus BPT differ by analytic method. Multivariable and propensity score adjustment revealed greater mortality associated with BPT relative to RC, while IV analysis and simulation studies suggest that the two treatments are associated with similar survival outcomes.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。