Tzy-Mey Kuo1, Lee R Mobley2. 1. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB 7293, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7293, USA. tkuo@email.unc.edu. 2. School of Public Health and Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We determined whether the current SEER registries are representative of the nation's cancer cases or the socio-demographic characteristics. METHODS: We used breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) cases diagnosed 2004-2009 from the US Cancer Statistics (USCS) database. Cases were classified into groups residing in SEER coverage areas and the other areas. We compared difference between SEER and non-SEER areas in: age-race-specific proportions of late-stage BC or CRC, area demographics and socioeconomic factors, and data quality. RESULTS: For late-stage CRC diagnosis, SEER areas contained lower proportions of people with other race and higher proportions of Asian and Hispanic females aged <40, than non-SEER areas. For late-stage BC diagnosis, SEER and non-SEER estimates were comparable. SEER areas had lower percentages of whites and higher percentages of young people, were more urban, and had higher percentage of poor, lower educational attainment, and higher unemployment. SEER areas also tended to have a higher percentage of case completeness than non-SEER areas. CONCLUSION: Overall, SEER registries were not significantly different from non-SEER areas in terms of average age-race-specific proportions of late-stage BC or CRC, except for estimates of late-stage CRC for other race and young Asian and Hispanic women. Although case completeness was better in SEER areas than non-SEER areas, SEER areas had greater economic disadvantage and greater minority diversity among the population. This study demonstrated a need for caution in using SEER data and discussed advantages of using the more complete USCS database.
BACKGROUND: We determined whether the current SEER registries are representative of the nation's cancer cases or the socio-demographic characteristics. METHODS: We used breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) cases diagnosed 2004-2009 from the US Cancer Statistics (USCS) database. Cases were classified into groups residing in SEER coverage areas and the other areas. We compared difference between SEER and non-SEER areas in: age-race-specific proportions of late-stage BC or CRC, area demographics and socioeconomic factors, and data quality. RESULTS: For late-stage CRC diagnosis, SEER areas contained lower proportions of people with other race and higher proportions of Asian and Hispanic females aged <40, than non-SEER areas. For late-stage BC diagnosis, SEER and non-SEER estimates were comparable. SEER areas had lower percentages of whites and higher percentages of young people, were more urban, and had higher percentage of poor, lower educational attainment, and higher unemployment. SEER areas also tended to have a higher percentage of case completeness than non-SEER areas. CONCLUSION: Overall, SEER registries were not significantly different from non-SEER areas in terms of average age-race-specific proportions of late-stage BC or CRC, except for estimates of late-stage CRC for other race and young Asian and Hispanic women. Although case completeness was better in SEER areas than non-SEER areas, SEER areas had greater economic disadvantage and greater minority diversity among the population. This study demonstrated a need for caution in using SEER data and discussed advantages of using the more complete USCS database.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer; Generalizable; Late stage; Registry; SEER
Authors: Phyllis A Wingo; Patricia M Jamison; Robert A Hiatt; Hannah K Weir; Paul M Gargiullo; Mary Hutton; Nancy C Lee; H Irene Hall Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Roxanne E Jensen; Arnold L Potosky; Carol M Moinpour; Tania Lobo; David Cella; Elizabeth A Hahn; David Thissen; Ashley Wilder Smith; Jaeil Ahn; George Luta; Bryce B Reeve Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Whitney E Zahnd; Wiley D Jenkins; Aimee S James; Sonya R Izadi; David E Steward; Amanda J Fogleman; Graham A Colditz; Laurent Brard Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Joshua Herb; Rachael Wolff; Philip McDaniel; Mark Holmes; Jennifer Lund; Karyn Stitzenberg Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2021-01-03 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Nadia N Khan; Tennille Lewin; Amy Hatton; Charles Pilgrim; Liane Ioannou; Luc Te Marvelde; John Zalcberg; Sue Evans Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Amy M Berkman; Clark R Andersen; Vidya Puthenpura; J A Livingston; Sairah Ahmed; Branko Cuglievan; Michelle A T Hildebrandt; Michael E Roth Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Alexander Melamed; Daniel J Margul; Ling Chen; Nancy L Keating; Marcela G Del Carmen; Junhua Yang; Brandon-Luke L Seagle; Amy Alexander; Emma L Barber; Laurel W Rice; Jason D Wright; Masha Kocherginsky; Shohreh Shahabi; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lee R Mobley; Florence K L Tangka; Zahava Berkowitz; Jacqueline Miller; Ingrid J Hall; Manxia Wu; Susan A Sabatino Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 3.017