% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Bing:303084,
      author       = {X. Bing and Q. Lei$^*$ and L. Wang and X. Zhao and X. Chen
                      and L. Zhang and A. Försti$^*$ and J. Yang and T. Chen},
      title        = {{A}ssessment of long-term survival in childhood cancer
                      patients using cancer registry data from eastern {C}hina:
                      {P}eriod analysis outperforms traditional analysis.},
      journal      = {International journal of cancer},
      volume       = {nn},
      issn         = {0020-7136},
      address      = {Bognor Regis},
      publisher    = {Wiley-Liss},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2025-01509},
      pages        = {nn},
      year         = {2025},
      note         = {epub},
      abstract     = {This study systematically evaluated whether period analysis
                      outperforms traditional cohort and complete analyses in
                      estimating 5-year relative survival (RS) for childhood
                      cancer patients using data from nine cancer registries in
                      Taizhou, Eastern China (2009-2018). Analyses included
                      patients under 15 years diagnosed with childhood cancers,
                      with 5-year RS estimates from cohort, complete, and period
                      methods compared against observed actual survival
                      (2014-2018: $70.1\%).$ Accuracy and robustness were assessed
                      via deviation value (DV) and standard error (SE). Cohort
                      analysis yielded a 5-year RS of $55.8\%$ (DV: $-14.3\%,$ SE:
                      2.4), complete analysis $61.1\%$ (DV: $-9.0\%,$ SE: 1.7),
                      and period analysis $68.2\%$ (DV: $-1.9\%,$ SE: 2.1).
                      Stratified evaluations by sex, region, age at diagnosis, and
                      cancer types confirmed period analysis as the most accurate
                      (lowest DV across subgroups) while complete analysis showed
                      the smallest SE values, indicating superior robustness.
                      Cohort analysis performed the worst in both accuracy and
                      robustness. This study is the first in China to validate
                      that period analysis offers superior accuracy in estimating
                      5-year RS for childhood cancer patients overall and across
                      various stratifications compared to cohort and complete
                      analyses. Findings underscore the utility of period analysis
                      in generating timely survival estimates to inform early
                      detection strategies and cancer control policies, offering
                      critical methodological support for advancing pediatric
                      oncology outcomes assessment in China.},
      keywords     = {cancer registry (Other) / childhood cancers (Other) /
                      long‐term survival (Other) / period analysis (Other)},
      cin          = {C110 / B062 / HD01},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)C110-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)B062-20160331 /
                      I:(DE-He78)HD01-20160331},
      pnm          = {313 - Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention (POF4-313)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:40699182},
      doi          = {10.1002/ijc.70060},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/303084},
}