Search

Background: Cancer survival is an important indicator for evaluating cancer prognosis and cancer care outcomes. The incidence dates used in calculating survival differ between population-based registries and hospital-based registries. Studies examining the effects of the left truncation of incidence dates and delayed reporting on survival estimates are scarce in real-world applications. Methods: Cancer cases hospitalized at Nantong Tumor Hospital during the years 2002-2017 were traced with their records registered in the Qidong Cancer Registry. Survival was calculated using the life table method for cancer patients with the first visit dates recorded in the hospital-based cancer registry (HBR) as the diagnosis date (OSH), those with the registered dates of population-based cancer (PBR) registered as the incidence date (OSP), and those with corrected dates when the delayed report dates were calibrated (OSC). Results: Among 2,636 cases, 1,307 had incidence dates registered in PBR prior to the diagnosis dates of the first hospitalization registered in HBR, while 667 cases with incidence dates registered in PBR were later than the diagnosis dates registered in HBR. The 5-year OSH, OSP, and OSC were 36.1%, 37.4%, and 39.0%, respectively. The "lost" proportion of 5-year survival due to the left truncation for HBR data was estimated to be between 3.5% and 7.4%, and the "delayed-report" proportion of 5-year survival for PBR data was found to be 4.1%. Conclusion: Left truncation of survival in HBR cases was demonstrated. The pseudo-left truncation in PBR should be reduced by controlling delayed reporting and maximizing completeness. Our study provides practical references and suggestions for evaluating the survival of cancer patients with HBR and PBR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer survival is an important indicator for evaluating cancer prognosis and cancer care outcomes. The incidence dates used in calculating survival differ between population-based registries and hospital-based registries. Studies examining the effects of the left truncation of incidence dates and delayed reporting on survival estimates are scarce in real-world applications., Methods: Cancer cases hospitalized at Nantong Tumor Hospital during the years 2002-2017 were traced with their records registered in the Qidong Cancer Registry. Survival was calculated using the life table method for cancer patients with the first visit dates recorded in the hospital-based cancer registry (HBR) as the diagnosis date ( OS H ), those with the registered dates of population-based cancer (PBR) registered as the incidence date ( OS P ), and those with corrected dates when the delayed report dates were calibrated ( OS C )., Results: Among 2,636 cases, 1,307 had incidence dates registered in PBR prior to the diagnosis dates of the first hospitalization registered in HBR, while 667 cases with incidence dates registered in PBR were later than the diagnosis dates registered in HBR. The 5-year OS H , OS P , and OS C were 36.1%, 37.4%, and 39.0%, respectively. The "lost" proportion of 5-year survival due to the left truncation for HBR data was estimated to be between 3.5% and 7.4%, and the "delayed-report" proportion of 5-year survival for PBR data was found to be 4.1%., Conclusion: Left truncation of survival in HBR cases was demonstrated. The pseudo-left truncation in PBR should be reduced by controlling delayed reporting and maximizing completeness. Our study provides practical references and suggestions for evaluating the survival of cancer patients with HBR and PBR., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Chen, Chen, Zhu, Shen, Sun and Parkin.)

Owing to the fact that frontal regions of the brain are severely deactivated during sleep, there is a seeming inconsistency between the prominent Global Neuronal Workspace Theory of consciousness and the received view that dreams are vivid experiences occurring while sleeping. Indeed, based on the canonical criterion of reportability, Global Neuronal Workspace theorists claim that frontal activation of the brain is a necessary condition for conscious experience. Does it mean the received view is scientifically questionable? We argue the opposite way considering dreaming as a conscious experience that strikingly satisfies the current use of the canonical criterion though occurring under constraint of delayed reports. Further, this compelling condition of delayed report depends on a constitutional dissociation between experiencing and the cognitive mechanisms preparing report that proves very insightful. In line with recent findings from research on waking perception, this dissociation hints that Global Neuronal Workspace Theory is biased. Eventually, we discuss a recent claim according to which dreaming could "settle the debate opposing cognitive and noncognitive theories of consciousness." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]