Is the standardized incidence ratio of second primary cancers robust to index-cancer survival gains? A simulation and SEER-based evaluation

BACKGROUND: The burden of second primary cancers (SPCs) is rising, partly because patients with a first cancer now survive longer. Two metrics coexist to quantify SPC risk: cumulative incidence, whose dependence on survival is well recognised, and the standardized incidence ratio (SIR), widely treated as survival-robust because it accounts for person-years at risk. Calendar-era SIR trends are increasingly reported and interpreted as real changes in risk, yet whether such trends could instead arise artefactually from concurrent gains in index-cancer survival has never been tested. METHODS: We combined a calibrated simulation with an empirical analysis of SEER 17 (2000-2023). The simulation generated cohorts with strictly constant, stage-specific SPC risk, allowing only index-cancer 12-month survival to vary according to SEER-measured values, and applied a 12-month latency exclusion reproducing the SEER*Stat multiple-primary SIR procedure. Empirically, across 27 site × stage strata spanning wide survival-gain gradients, we related the observed 12-month survival gain (2004-09 vs 2015-18) to the calendar-year slope of the SPC SIR (Poisson regression), with six sensitivity analyses and a power calculation. RESULTS: At constant stage-specific risk, the simulated SIR drifted with survival, but across 200 Monte-Carlo replications the median bias-attributable slope was more than an order of magnitude smaller than the observed SIR slope (0.28 vs 7.9 × 10⁻³ per year), despite per-stage SIRs differing enough for the mechanism to act. Empirically, survival gain and SIR slope were unrelated (Pearson r = -0.00, p = 0.99), robust across all sensitivity analyses; power was adequate to detect r ≥ 0.50. CONCLUSIONS: Survivor-recomposition bias in the SPC SIR exists in principle but was small on average in the sites and calendar period studied. Unlike cumulative incidence, the SIR can generally be interpreted across calendar eras without major survival correction, although weak, site-specific, or longer-term effects cannot be excluded.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cancer Epidemiology
Published
2026-10-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2026.103252
Primary Topic
Multiple and Secondary Primary Cancers
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Is the standardized incidence ratio of second primary cancers robust to index-cancer survival gains? A simulation and SEER-based evaluation

Pierre-Etienne Heudel
Cancer Epidemiology
Multiple and Secondary Primary Cancers
article

Is the standardized incidence ratio of second primary cancers robust to index-cancer survival gains? A simulation and SEER-based evaluation

Pierre-Etienne Heudel
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The burden of second primary cancers (SPCs) is rising, partly because patients with a first cancer now survive longer. Two metrics coexist to quantify SPC risk: cumulative incidence, whose dependence on survival is well recognised, and the standardized incidence ratio (SIR), widely treated as survival-robust because it accounts for person-years at risk. Calendar-era SIR trends are increasingly reported and interpreted as real changes in risk, yet whether such trends could instead arise artefactually from concurrent gains in index-cancer survival has never been tested. METHODS: We combined a calibrated simulation with an empirical analysis of SEER 17 (2000-2023). The simulation generated cohorts with strictly constant, stage-specific SPC risk, allowing only index-cancer 12-month survival to vary according to SEER-measured values, and applied a 12-month latency exclusion reproducing the SEER*Stat multiple-primary SIR procedure. Empirically, across 27 site × stage strata spanning wide survival-gain gradients, we related the observed 12-month survival gain (2004-09 vs 2015-18) to the calendar-year slope of the SPC SIR (Poisson regression), with six sensitivity analyses and a power calculation. RESULTS: At constant stage-specific risk, the simulated SIR drifted with survival, but across 200 Monte-Carlo replications the median bias-attributable slope was more than an order of magnitude smaller than the observed SIR slope (0.28 vs 7.9 × 10⁻³ per year), despite per-stage SIRs differing enough for the mechanism to act. Empirically, survival gain and SIR slope were unrelated (Pearson r = -0.00, p = 0.99), robust across all sensitivity analyses; power was adequate to detect r ≥ 0.50. CONCLUSIONS: Survivor-recomposition bias in the SPC SIR exists in principle but was small on average in the sites and calendar period studied. Unlike cumulative incidence, the SIR can generally be interpreted across calendar eras without major survival correction, although weak, site-specific, or longer-term effects cannot be excluded.

Cancer EpidemiologyVol. 105
Centre Léon Bérard (FR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Multiple and Secondary Primary Cancers
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.