
doi: 10.1007/bf00051311
pmid: 8318634
The value of cancer treatment was assessed using a 'natural experiment' where patients who refused treatment served as no-treatment controls in a situation where withholding treatment to form a control group is unethical. Each cancer patient who refused treatment in Alberta, Canada between 1975 and 1988 was compared with five subjects who accepted treatment, matched on cancer site, age, number of cancers, and time period. Variables associated with treatment-refusal were included in Cox's proportional hazards model of survival, with death from cancer as the endpoint and deaths from other causes as censored observations. Treatment was refused at a rate of 7.5 per 1,000. One-third of patients who refused treatment had lung cancer and most had unstaged disease. Treatment refusal was associated with a difference in median survival of approximately nine months. Site-specific analyses showed a range of effects. Case fatality among the treated patients fell by approximately 10 percent during the 14-year study period. Even in advanced disease, treatment can result in improved survival. However, the results of this study must be interpreted with caution and cannot be generalized to all cancer patients.
Adult, Aged, 80 and over, Male, Adolescent, Infant, Newborn, Infant, Middle Aged, Control Groups, Alberta, Predictive Value of Tests, Case-Control Studies, Child, Preschool, Neoplasms, Humans, Female, Occupations, Child, Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Proportional Hazards Models
Adult, Aged, 80 and over, Male, Adolescent, Infant, Newborn, Infant, Middle Aged, Control Groups, Alberta, Predictive Value of Tests, Case-Control Studies, Child, Preschool, Neoplasms, Humans, Female, Occupations, Child, Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Proportional Hazards Models
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 22 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
