R Zanetti1, I Schmidtmann2, L Sacchetto3, F Binder-Foucard4, A Bordoni5, D Coza6, S Ferretti7, J Galceran8, A Gavin9, N Larranaga10, D Robinson11, L Tryggvadottir12, E Van Eycken13, V Zadnik14, J W W Coebergh15, S Rosso3. 1. Piedmont Cancer Registry, CPO, Via San Francesco da Paola 31, 10123 Turin, Italy. Electronic address: roberto.zanetti@cpo.it. 2. Institute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics (IMBEI), Division Medical Biometry, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg, University Mainz, Langenbeckstr. 1, D 55131 Mainz, Germany. 3. Piedmont Cancer Registry, CPO, Via San Francesco da Paola 31, 10123 Turin, Italy. 4. Registre des Cancers du Bas-Rhin, 11 rue Humann, 67085 Strasbourg Cedex, France. 5. Ticino Cancer Registry, Istituto cantonale di patologia, Via Selva 24, 6601 Locarno, Switzerland. 6. Cluj Regional Cancer Registry, Dept. of Epidemiology & Medical Biostatistics, Oncological Institute 'Ion Chiricuta', Republicii Street No. 34-36, 400015 Cluj Napoca, Romania. 7. Ferrara Cancer Registry, Via Fossato di Mortara 64B, 44121 Ferrara, Italy. 8. Tarragona Cancer Registry, Foundation Society for Cancer Research and Prevention, IISPV, C/Josep Laporte, 1, 43204 Reus, Spain. 9. Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, Dept. of Epidemiology & Public Health, Queen's University Inst. of Clinical Science, Mulhouse Bldg, Grosvenor Road, BT12 6BJ Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK. 10. Basque Cancer Registry, Servicio de Registros e Informacion Sanitaria, Departamento de Salud del Gobierno Vasco, 01010 Donostia-San Sebastian 1, 01010 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain. 11. Thames Cancer Registry, King's College London, Cancer Epidemiology and Population Health, 1st Floor, Capital House, 42 Weston Street, SE1 3QD London, UK. 12. Icelandic Cancer Registry, Icelandic Cancer Society, P.O. Box 5420, Skógarhlíd 8, 125 Reykjavik, Iceland. 13. Belgian Cancer Registry, Koningstraat 215, 1210 Brussels, Belgium. 14. Cancer Registry of Republic of Slovenia, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Zaloska cesta 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. 15. IKZ Integraal Kankercentrum Zuid, P.O. Box 231, 5600 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Cancer registries must provide complete and reliable incidence information with the shortest possible delay for use in studies such as comparability, clustering, cancer in the elderly and adequacy of cancer surveillance. Methods of varying complexity are available to registries for monitoring completeness and timeliness. We wished to know which methods are currently in use among cancer registries, and to compare the results of our findings to those of a survey carried out in 2006. METHODS: In the framework of the EUROCOURSE project, and to prepare cancer registries for participation in the ERA-net scheme, we launched a survey on the methods used to assess completeness, and also on the timeliness and methods of dissemination of results by registries. We sent the questionnaire to all general registries (GCRs) and specialised registries (SCRs) active in Europe and within the European Network of Cancer Registries (ENCR). RESULTS: With a response rate of 66% among GCRs and 59% among SCRs, we obtained data for analysis from 116 registries with a population coverage of ∼280 million. The most common methods used were comparison of trends (79%) and mortality/incidence ratios (more than 60%). More complex methods were used less commonly: capture-recapture by 30%, flow method by 18% and death certificate notification (DCN) methods with the Ajiki formula by 9%. The median latency for completion of ascertainment of incidence was 18 months. Additional time required for dissemination was of the order of 3-6 months, depending on the method: print or electronic. One fifth (21%) did not publish results for their own registry but only as a contribution to larger national or international data repositories and publications; this introduced a further delay in the availability of data. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer registries should improve the practice of measuring their completeness regularly and should move from traditional to more quantitative methods. This could also have implications in the timeliness of data publication.
UNLABELLED: Cancer registries must provide complete and reliable incidence information with the shortest possible delay for use in studies such as comparability, clustering, cancer in the elderly and adequacy of cancer surveillance. Methods of varying complexity are available to registries for monitoring completeness and timeliness. We wished to know which methods are currently in use among cancer registries, and to compare the results of our findings to those of a survey carried out in 2006. METHODS: In the framework of the EUROCOURSE project, and to prepare cancer registries for participation in the ERA-net scheme, we launched a survey on the methods used to assess completeness, and also on the timeliness and methods of dissemination of results by registries. We sent the questionnaire to all general registries (GCRs) and specialised registries (SCRs) active in Europe and within the European Network of Cancer Registries (ENCR). RESULTS: With a response rate of 66% among GCRs and 59% among SCRs, we obtained data for analysis from 116 registries with a population coverage of ∼280 million. The most common methods used were comparison of trends (79%) and mortality/incidence ratios (more than 60%). More complex methods were used less commonly: capture-recapture by 30%, flow method by 18% and death certificate notification (DCN) methods with the Ajiki formula by 9%. The median latency for completion of ascertainment of incidence was 18 months. Additional time required for dissemination was of the order of 3-6 months, depending on the method: print or electronic. One fifth (21%) did not publish results for their own registry but only as a contribution to larger national or international data repositories and publications; this introduced a further delay in the availability of data. CONCLUSIONS:Cancer registries should improve the practice of measuring their completeness regularly and should move from traditional to more quantitative methods. This could also have implications in the timeliness of data publication.
Authors: Bing Yu; Krista A Zanetti; Marinella Temprosa; Demetrius Albanes; Nathan Appel; Clara Barrios Barrera; Yoav Ben-Shlomo; Eric Boerwinkle; Juan P Casas; Clary Clish; Caroline Dale; Abbas Dehghan; Andriy Derkach; A Heather Eliassen; Paul Elliott; Eoin Fahy; Christian Gieger; Marc J Gunter; Sei Harada; Tamara Harris; Deron R Herr; David Herrington; Joel N Hirschhorn; Elise Hoover; Ann W Hsing; Mattias Johansson; Rachel S Kelly; Chin Meng Khoo; Mika Kivimäki; Bruce S Kristal; Claudia Langenberg; Jessica Lasky-Su; Deborah A Lawlor; Luca A Lotta; Massimo Mangino; Loïc Le Marchand; Ewy Mathé; Charles E Matthews; Cristina Menni; Lorelei A Mucci; Rachel Murphy; Matej Oresic; Eric Orwoll; Jennifer Ose; Alexandre C Pereira; Mary C Playdon; Lucilla Poston; Jackie Price; Qibin Qi; Kathryn Rexrode; Adam Risch; Joshua Sampson; Wei Jie Seow; Howard D Sesso; Svati H Shah; Xiao-Ou Shu; Gordon C S Smith; Ulla Sovio; Victoria L Stevens; Rachael Stolzenberg-Solomon; Toru Takebayashi; Therese Tillin; Ruth Travis; Ioanna Tzoulaki; Cornelia M Ulrich; Ramachandran S Vasan; Mukesh Verma; Ying Wang; Nick J Wareham; Andrew Wong; Naji Younes; Hua Zhao; Wei Zheng; Steven C Moore Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Mark Lawler; Anna Gavin; Manuel Salto-Tellez; Richard D Kennedy; Sandra Van Schaeybroeck; Richard H Wilson; Denis Paul Harkin; Margaret Grayson; Ruth E Boyd; Peter W Hamilton; Darragh G McArt; Jacqueline James; Tracy Robson; Robert D Ladner; Kevin M Prise; Joe M O'Sullivan; Timothy Harrison; Liam Murray; Patrick G Johnston; David J Waugh Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-12-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Abdulrahman K AAlAbdulsalam; Jennifer H Garvin; Andrew Redd; Marjorie E Carter; Carol Sweeny; Stephane M Meystre Journal: AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc Date: 2018-05-18
Authors: Kimberly D van der Willik; Rikje Ruiter; Frank J A van Rooij; Jolande Verkroost-van Heemst; Sander J Hogewoning; Karin C A A Timmermans; Otto Visser; Sanne B Schagen; M Arfan Ikram; Bruno H Ch Stricker Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 7.396