INTRODUCTION: It is a comparative register study designed for data validation of surgery, pathology and recurrence for endometrial cancer in the Danish Gynaecological Cancer Database (DGCD) in the 2005-2009 period. The main outcomes were completeness of the data registered in the DGCD, agreement concerning data reported and comparability between the DGCD and a definite reference. MATERIAL AND METHODS: DGCD data on women with endometrial cancer or adenomatous hyperplasia supplemented with patient charts for data on recurrence were retrieved and compared with a definite reference (the pathology report and clinical journals). RESULTS: The completeness of data on pathology and surgery reported to the DGCD was 97.3%. The comparability between the DGCG and the definite reference was 94.4%. The agreement for the reported data in the DGCD was 88.3%. For recurrence, the comparability was 94.5% and the agreement was 71.6%. Completeness could not be determined due to the design of the database, where recurrence is composed of optional variables only. CONCLUSION: The data on endometrial cancer registered in the DGCD regarding surgery and pathology are valid and complete, and they provide a solid base for research. Due to the relatively infrequent incidence of recurrences, and the fact that these are rarely entered into the database when they do occur, agreement concerning recurrence is low. Based on this study, the DGCD cannot alone provide information on recurrence that will give a reliable foundation for research. FUNDING: Funding was provided by the Health Research Fund of the Region of Central Jutland and the Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Aarhus University Hospital. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.
INTRODUCTION: It is a comparative register study designed for data validation of surgery, pathology and recurrence for endometrial cancer in the Danish Gynaecological Cancer Database (DGCD) in the 2005-2009 period. The main outcomes were completeness of the data registered in the DGCD, agreement concerning data reported and comparability between the DGCD and a definite reference. MATERIAL AND METHODS: DGCD data on women with endometrial cancer or adenomatous hyperplasia supplemented with patient charts for data on recurrence were retrieved and compared with a definite reference (the pathology report and clinical journals). RESULTS: The completeness of data on pathology and surgery reported to the DGCD was 97.3%. The comparability between the DGCG and the definite reference was 94.4%. The agreement for the reported data in the DGCD was 88.3%. For recurrence, the comparability was 94.5% and the agreement was 71.6%. Completeness could not be determined due to the design of the database, where recurrence is composed of optional variables only. CONCLUSION: The data on endometrial cancer registered in the DGCD regarding surgery and pathology are valid and complete, and they provide a solid base for research. Due to the relatively infrequent incidence of recurrences, and the fact that these are rarely entered into the database when they do occur, agreement concerning recurrence is low. Based on this study, the DGCD cannot alone provide information on recurrence that will give a reliable foundation for research. FUNDING: Funding was provided by the Health Research Fund of the Region of Central Jutland and the Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Aarhus University Hospital. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.