Literature DB >> 23443453

Evaluating factors associated with unknown SEER Summary Stage 2000 derived from collaborative stage at central registry level.

Mei-Chin Hsieh, Qingzhao Yu, Xiao-Cheng Wu, Brad Wohler, Ying Fan, Baozhen Qiao, Ahmedin Jemal, Umed A Ajani.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cancer stage is critical for treatment planning and assessing disease prognosis. The percentage of unknown staged cancer cases varies considerably across state cancer registries; factors contributing to the variations in unknown stage have not been reported in the literature before. The purpose of this study was to examine whether these variations were influenced by demographic and/or clinical factors as well as the type of reporting facility.
METHODS: Invasive colorectal, lung, female breast, and prostate cancers diagnosed between 2004 and 2007 were obtained from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR); 47 population-based cancer registries in the United States were included. The unknown stage was based on Summary Stage 2000 codes derived from Collaborative Stage Version 1 (CSv1). Relative importance analysis was used to identify variables that were essential in predicting unknown stage. Using state central registries as analytical units, multiple linear regression was used to evaluate factors associated with the percentage of unknown stage by cancer site; potential outlier registries with a high percentage of unknown stage cases were identified using boxplots and standardized residuals.
RESULTS: Overall, lung cancer had the highest percentage of unknown stage (8.3%) and prostate cancer had the largest variation of unknown stage among registries (0.6%-18.1%). The percentages of neoplasms not otherwise specified (NOS) histology, non-microscopic confirmation, and non-hospital reporting source were positively associated (p less than 0.05) with percentage of unknown stage for all studied cancer sites before adjustment. Variables that retained a positive association with unknown stage including all demographic and clinical variables, year of diagnosis, and type of reporting source were black race, metropolitan area less than 1 million population, histologies of neoplasms NOS or epithelial neoplasms NOS, diagnosis year 2005, and non-hospital reporting source for colorectal cancer; metropolitan area less than 1 million population, neoplasms NOS histology, and non-hospital reporting source for female breast; and diagnosis year 2005 and non-hospital reporting source for prostate. After adjustment, none of the predictors were significant for lung cancer. We observed 1 potential outlier registry each for colorectal, lung and female breast cancers.
CONCLUSIONS: Factors associated with unknown stage differ by cancer site; however, the type of reporting source is an important predictor of unknown stage for all cancers except lung after adjustment. Central registries with high percentage of unknown stage should be made aware of their data quality issue(s). As a result, these registries can investigate those factors and provide training to registrars to improve their cancer data quality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23443453      PMCID: PMC5861716     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Registry Manag        ISSN: 1945-6131


  7 in total

Review 1.  A critical look at methods for handling missing covariates in epidemiologic regression analyses.

Authors:  S Greenland; W D Finkle
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1995-12-15       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Racial and ethnic differences in advanced-stage prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study.

Authors:  R M Hoffman; F D Gilliland; J W Eley; L C Harlan; R A Stephenson; J L Stanford; P C Albertson; A S Hamilton; W C Hunt; A L Potosky
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2001-03-07       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Colorectal cancer stage at diagnosis by socioeconomic and urban/rural status in California, 1988-2000.

Authors:  Arti Parikh-Patel; Janet H Bates; Sharan Campleman
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2006-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Race, socioeconomic status and stage at diagnosis for five common malignancies.

Authors:  Kendra L Schwartz; Heather Crossley-May; Fawn D Vigneau; Karl Brown; Mousumi Banerjee
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 2.506

5.  Factors associated with advanced disease stage at diagnosis in a population-based study of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer.

Authors:  Karin M E Hahn; Melissa L Bondy; Mano Selvan; Mary Jo Lund; Jonathan M Liff; Elaine W Flagg; Louise A Brinton; Peggy Porter; J William Eley; Ralph J Coates
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-08-09       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Differences in breast cancer stage, treatment, and survival by race and ethnicity.

Authors:  Christopher I Li; Kathleen E Malone; Janet R Daling
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2003-01-13

7.  Imputation of missing values of tumour stage in population-based cancer registration.

Authors:  Nora Eisemann; Annika Waldmann; Alexander Katalinic
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-09-19       Impact factor: 4.615

  7 in total
  3 in total

1.  Cancer Registration Manual Understanding by Medical Record Administrators

Authors:  Hyun-Sook Lim; Yoo-Kyung Boo; Young-Joo Won
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2017-04-01

2.  Rural-Urban and Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Invasive Cervical Cancer Incidence in the United States, 2010-2014.

Authors:  Lulu Yu; Susan A Sabatino; Mary C White
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2019-06-06       Impact factor: 2.830

3.  Gastric adenocarcinoma burden and late-stage diagnosis in Latino and non-Latino populations in the United States and Texas, during 2004-2016: A multilevel analysis.

Authors:  Dorothy Long Parma; Susanne Schmidt; Edgar Muñoz; Amelie G Ramirez
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-08-19       Impact factor: 4.452

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.