BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) is a large, geographically diverse hospital-based cancer registry that has been used to study factors related to cancer diagnosis, treatment, and survival. The primary purpose of this study was to compare the case counts and characteristics of patients in NCDB with population-based registries reported in the United States Cancer Statistics (USCS). METHODS: Cancer case counts from NCDB were compared to case counts from USCS to measure NCDB's case coverage, or the percentage of cases captured. Case coverage was examined by a variety of characteristics, including state of residence, race/ethnicity, age, and primary cancer site. RESULTS: The overall NCDB case coverage was 67.4 %, ranging from a high of 88.7 % for Delaware to a low of 27.1 % for Arizona. Case coverage for white, black, and Asian/Pacific Islander cases was high (64.7 % to 67.4 %), but it was much lower for American Indians/Alaskan Natives (32.8 %) and those of Hispanic ethnicity (51.1 %). Among the elderly (aged 65 + years), case coverage is much lower compared to persons younger than 65 (63.0 % and 73.0 %, respectively). Case coverage also varied widely by site, with the highest being cervix (77.9 %) and the lowest being melanoma (50.6 %). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the geographic- and site-specific variation in NCDB case coverage, primarily as a result of NCDB facility presence and data collection and processing protocols. These findings illustrate the strengths and limitations of NCDB as a resource for nationwide data on cancer diagnosis, treatment, and survival.
BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) is a large, geographically diverse hospital-based cancer registry that has been used to study factors related to cancer diagnosis, treatment, and survival. The primary purpose of this study was to compare the case counts and characteristics of patients in NCDB with population-based registries reported in the United States Cancer Statistics (USCS). METHODS:Cancer case counts from NCDB were compared to case counts from USCS to measure NCDB's case coverage, or the percentage of cases captured. Case coverage was examined by a variety of characteristics, including state of residence, race/ethnicity, age, and primary cancer site. RESULTS: The overall NCDB case coverage was 67.4 %, ranging from a high of 88.7 % for Delaware to a low of 27.1 % for Arizona. Case coverage for white, black, and Asian/Pacific Islander cases was high (64.7 % to 67.4 %), but it was much lower for American Indians/Alaskan Natives (32.8 %) and those of Hispanic ethnicity (51.1 %). Among the elderly (aged 65 + years), case coverage is much lower compared to persons younger than 65 (63.0 % and 73.0 %, respectively). Case coverage also varied widely by site, with the highest being cervix (77.9 %) and the lowest being melanoma (50.6 %). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the geographic- and site-specific variation in NCDB case coverage, primarily as a result of NCDB facility presence and data collection and processing protocols. These findings illustrate the strengths and limitations of NCDB as a resource for nationwide data on cancer diagnosis, treatment, and survival.
Authors: Jennifer R Cracchiolo; Benjamin R Roman; David I Kutler; William I Kuhel; Marc A Cohen Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Kelsey L Corrigan; Leticia Nogueira; K Robin Yabroff; Chun Chieh Lin; Xuesong Han; Junzo P Chino; Anna E Coghill; Meredith Shiels; Ahmedin Jemal; Gita Suneja Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: R Alex Harbison; Alan J Gray; Ted Westling; Marco Carone; Cristina P Rodriguez; Neal D Futran; Richard B Cannon; Jeffrey Houlton Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2019-08-29 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Nader N Massarweh; Chung-Yuan Hu; Y Nancy You; Brian K Bednarski; Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas; John M Skibber; Scott B Cantor; Janice N Cormier; Barry W Feig; George J Chang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nader N Massarweh; Alex B Haynes; Yi-Ju Chiang; George J Chang; Y Nancy You; Barry W Feig; Janice N Cormier Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Courtney J Pokrzywa; Daniel E Abbott; Kristina A Matkowskyj; Sean M Ronnekleiv-Kelly; Emily R Winslow; Sharon M Weber; Alexander V Fisher Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Richard J Bleicher; Karen Ruth; Elin R Sigurdson; J Robert Beck; Eric Ross; Yu-Ning Wong; Sameer A Patel; Marcia Boraas; Eric I Chang; Neal S Topham; Brian L Egleston Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Chun Chieh Lin; Suanna S Bruinooge; M Kelsey Kirkwood; Dawn L Hershman; Ahmedin Jemal; B Ashleigh Guadagnolo; James B Yu; Shane Hopkins; Michael Goldstein; Dean Bajorin; Sharon H Giordano; Michael Kosty; Anna Arnone; Amy Hanley; Stephanie Stevens; Christine Olsen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 7.038