Interpreting data from surgical follow-up studies: The role of modeling

44Citations
Citations of this article
21Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Considerable caution is required in interpreting the output of the model described above. In particular, the fact (Figure presented) that the modeled, comparator survival curve lies within the 95% confidence interval of the observed 5-year survival rate reported for metastasectomy should not be interpreted as evidence that pulmonary metastasectomy is ineffective (see Ref. 12 for a full discussion of the limitations). That said, the findings of the simple modeling exercise undermine the notion that the reported 5-year survival rates of 30 to 40% after pulmonary metastasectomy in colorectal cancer are, of themselves, sufficient proof that survival benefit is conferred to patients by this operation. Used in this way, as one form of evidence among many, modeling has a useful role to play in evaluating and interpreting non-trial data. Copyright © 2010 by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Utley, M., & Treasure, T. (2010). Interpreting data from surgical follow-up studies: The role of modeling. Journal of Thoracic Oncology, 5(6 SUPPL. 2). https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181dd0a8d

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free