Correspondence  |   August 2016
In Reply
Author Notes
  • Royal Marsden Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom (T.J.M.). timothy.wigmore@rmh.nhs.uk
  • James C. Eisenach, M.D., served as Editor-in-Chief for this exchange.
    James C. Eisenach, M.D., served as Editor-in-Chief for this exchange.×
  • (Accepted for publication April 6, 2016.)
    (Accepted for publication April 6, 2016.)×
Article Information
Correspondence
Correspondence   |   August 2016
In Reply
Anesthesiology 8 2016, Vol.125, 420-422. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001177
Anesthesiology 8 2016, Vol.125, 420-422. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001177
Many thanks for your comments on our recent retrospective study.1 
With regard to the first point posed by Drs. Ali and Ghori, concerning the use of the term “long-term cancer survival,” we agree that together with 1-yr survival, 5- and 10-yr survival rates are commonly used when reporting cancer survival. However, contextually, mortality rates for perioperative interventions are commonly reported as either 30 days or length of stay, and as such the reported follow-up of between 18 months and 4.5 yr would qualify as long term.
With regard to the use of the propensity model and all-cause mortality data, we agree that a better approach would have been to consider cancer-attributable mortality. However, these data are not reliably available in the United Kingdom. National cancer registries do not cover the broad span of cancers we considered, and in addition often have incomplete data for the early years covered by the study.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large