OBJECTIVE: Clinical databases have been invented to monitor treatment outcomes, therapies or diseases, often in great detail. The traditional population-based cancer registry has been invented to collect a minimum of information about all incident cancers. Do clinical databases render population-based cancer registers obsolete as sources of cancer cases for epidemiological study? METHODS: We compared the study base of first incident breast cancer cases in Denmark in 1978-1994 known from the national cancer register and from the national clinical database on breast cancer patients. The clinical database is used for monitoring protocoled treatment. RESULTS: Combining the two data sources we found 48,522 first primary breast cancers in Denmark 1978-1994. Of these, 37,640 were included in both data sources, 2151 were included only in the clinical database, and 8731 were included only in the cancer register. A major part of the difference between the two data sources was due to treatment-focused data collection in the clinical database, and a minor part due to differences in the registration of second primaries, date of diagnosis and invasiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer incidence data are sensitive to registration procedures and definitions. Clinical cancer databases cannot generally replace the traditional cancer register as a reliable data source for incident cancer cases in a national population.
OBJECTIVE: Clinical databases have been invented to monitor treatment outcomes, therapies or diseases, often in great detail. The traditional population-based cancer registry has been invented to collect a minimum of information about all incident cancers. Do clinical databases render population-based cancer registers obsolete as sources of cancer cases for epidemiological study? METHODS: We compared the study base of first incident breast cancer cases in Denmark in 1978-1994 known from the national cancer register and from the national clinical database on breast cancerpatients. The clinical database is used for monitoring protocoled treatment. RESULTS: Combining the two data sources we found 48,522 first primary breast cancers in Denmark 1978-1994. Of these, 37,640 were included in both data sources, 2151 were included only in the clinical database, and 8731 were included only in the cancer register. A major part of the difference between the two data sources was due to treatment-focused data collection in the clinical database, and a minor part due to differences in the registration of second primaries, date of diagnosis and invasiveness. CONCLUSIONS:Cancer incidence data are sensitive to registration procedures and definitions. Clinical cancer databases cannot generally replace the traditional cancer register as a reliable data source for incident cancer cases in a national population.
Authors: William F Anderson; Philip S Rosenberg; Lucia Petito; Hormuzd A Katki; Bent Ejlertsen; Marianne Ewertz; Birgitte B Rasmussen; Maj-Britt Jensen; Niels Kroman Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Young-Jae Hwang; Nayoung Kim; Chang Yong Yun; Hyuk Yoon; Cheol Min Shin; Young Soo Park; Il Tae Son; Heung-Kwon Oh; Duck-Woo Kim; Sung-Bum Kang; Hye Seung Lee; Seon Mee Park; Dong Ho Lee Journal: J Cancer Prev Date: 2018-12-30
Authors: L R Hölmich; L Mellemkjaer; K A Gunnarsdóttir; U B Tange; C Krag; S Møller; J K McLaughlin; J H Olsen Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2003-03-24 Impact factor: 7.640