Design of Retrospective and Case-Control Studies in Oncology

  • Katherine S. Panageas
  • Debra A. Goldman
  • T. Peter Kingham
Chapter

Abstract

Retrospective studies allow researchers to evaluate outcomes in a real-world setting at reduced costs compared with prospective trials, and have long-established use in surgical oncology. In retrospective studies, the study sample is generated from secondary or pre-existing data, which precludes randomization. As a result, the potential for unique and significant biases exists and these can limit the applicability and generalizability of the findings. This chapter is intended to serve as a guide for conducting retrospective research studies. Topics covered include internal and external validity; types of biases; sampling and matching techniques, including propensity score matching; missing data; and special considerations for common study designs. Examples from the surgical oncology literature are provided.

Keywords

Retrospective cancer research Case-control studies 

References

  1. 1.
    Gay J. Clinical study design and methods terminology. 2010. http://people.vetmed.wsu.edu/jmgay/courses/glossclinstudy.htm. Accessed 1 May 2017.
  2. 2.
    Porter GA, Skibber JM. Outcomes research in surgical oncology. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7(5):367–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Funai EF, Rosenbush EJ, Lee MJ, Del Priore G. Distribution of study designs in four major US journals of obstetrics and gynecology. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2001;51(1):8–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scales CD Jr, Norris RD, Peterson BL, Preminger GM, Dahm P. Clinical research and statistical methods in the urology literature. J Urol. 2005;174(4, Part 1):1374–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. Surgery and the randomised controlled trial: past, present and future. Med J Aust. 1998;169(7):380–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kærn J, Tropé CG, Abeler VM. A retrospective study of 370 borderline tumors of the ovary treated at the Norwegian Radium Hospital from 1970 to 1982. A review of clinicopathologic features and treatment modalities. Cancer. 1993;71(5):1810–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sartwell PE. Retrospective studies: a review for the clinician. Ann Intern Med. 1974;81(3):381–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van den Beuken-van Everdingen M, De Rijke J, Kessels A, Schouten H, Van Kleef M, Patijn J. Prevalence of pain in patients with cancer: a systematic review of the past 40 years. Ann Oncol. 2007;18(9):1437–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Markman M. A unique role for retrospective studies in clinical oncology. Oncology. 2014;86(5-6):350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hayden GF, Kramer MS, Horwitz RI. The case-control study. A practical review for the clinician. JAMA. 1982;247(3):326–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grimes DA, Schulz KF. An overview of clinical research: the lay of the land. Lancet. 2002;359(9300):57–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer E. Retrospective clinical studies in surgery: potentials and pitfalls. J Hand Surg. 2002;27(2):117–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    The Cochrane Collaboration. Glossary. 2017. http://community-archive.cochrane.org/glossary/5#letterv. Accessed 1 May 2017.
  14. 14.
    Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Sykora K, Mamdani M, Streiner DL, Garfinkel S, Normand S-LT, Geoffrey M. Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 1. Role and design. BMJ. 2005;330(7496):895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cook TD, Campbell DT. The design and conduct of quasi-experiments and true experiments in field settings. In: Dunnette MD, editor. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 223. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1976. p. 336.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Steckler A, McLeroy KR. The importance of external validity. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(1):9–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ademuyiwa FO, Edge SB, Erwin DO, Orom H, Ambrosone CB, Underwood W. Breast cancer racial disparities: unanswered questions. Cancer Res. 2011;71(3):640–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Albain KS, Unger JM, Crowley JJ, Coltman CA, Hershman DL. Racial disparities in cancer survival among randomized clinical trials patients of the Southwest Oncology Group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(14):984–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Du XL, Fang S, Vernon SW, El-Serag H, Shih YT, Davila J, Rasmus ML. Racial disparities and socioeconomic status in association with survival in a large population-based cohort of elderly patients with colon cancer. Cancer. 2007;110(3):660–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    York RO. Conducting social work research: an experiential approach. London: Pearson College Division; 1998.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aschengrau A, Seage GR. Essentials of epidemiology in public health. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC; 2013.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weiss NS. Clinical epidemiology: the study of the outcome of illness. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Coughlin SS. Recall bias in epidemiologic studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(1):87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Damon A, Bajema CJ. Age at menarche: accuracy of recall after thirty-nine years. Hum Biol. 1974;46:381–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lowe JT, Li X, Fasulo SM, Testa EJ, Jawa A. Patients recall worse preoperative pain after shoulder arthroplasty than originally reported: a study of recall accuracy using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2017;26(3):506–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schatman ME, Campbell A, Loeser JD. Chronic pain management: guidelines for multidisciplinary program development. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cochran WG, Rubin DB. Controlling bias in observational studies: a review. Sankhyā. 1973;35:417–46.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat. 2011;10(2):150–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Austin PC. A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Stat Med. 2008;27(12):2037–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc. 1984;79(387):516–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46(3):399–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Amar D, Zhang H, Pedoto A, Desiderio DP, Shi W, Tan KS. Protective lung ventilation and morbidity after pulmonary resection: a propensity score-matched analysis. Anesth Analg. 2017;125(1):190–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gu XS, Rosenbaum PR. Comparison of multivariate matching methods: structures, distances, and algorithms. J Comput Graph Stat. 1993;2(4):405–20.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Burton A, Altman DG. Missing covariate data within cancer prognostic studies: a review of current reporting and proposed guidelines. Br J Cancer. 2004;91(1):4–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pedersen AB, Mikkelsen EM, Cronin-Fenton D, Kristensen NR, Pham TM, Pedersen L, Petersen I. Missing data and multiple imputation in clinical epidemiological research. Clin Epidemiol. 2017;9:157–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Anderson JR, Cain KC, Gelber RD. Analysis of survival by tumor response. J Clin Oncol. 1983;1(11):710–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katherine S. Panageas
    • 1
  • Debra A. Goldman
    • 1
  • T. Peter Kingham
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations