| Literature DB >> 27822102 |
Bente Arboe1, Pär Josefsson2, Judit Jørgensen3, Jacob Haaber4, Paw Jensen5, Christian Poulsen6, Dorthe Rønnov-Jessen7, Robert S Pedersen8, Per Pedersen9, Mikael Frederiksen10, Michael Pedersen1, Peter de Nully Brown1.
Abstract
AIM OF DATABASE: The Danish National Lymphoma Registry (LYFO) was established in order to monitor and improve the diagnostic evaluation and the quality of treatment of all lymphoma patients in Denmark. STUDY POPULATION: The LYFO database was established in 1982 as a seminational database including all lymphoma patients referred to the departments of hematology. The database became nationwide on January 1, 2000. MAIN VARIABLES: The main variables include both clinical and paraclinical variables as well as details of treatment and treatment evaluation. Up to four forms are completed for each patient: a primary registration form, a treatment form, a relapse form, and a follow-up form. Variables are used to calculate six result quality indicators (mortality 30 and 180 days after diagnosis, response to first-line treatment, and survival estimates 1, 3, and 5 years after the time of diagnosis), and three process quality indicators (time from diagnosis until the start of treatment, the presence of relevant diagnostic markers, and inclusion rate in clinical protocols). DESCRIPTIVE DATA: Approximately 23,000 patients were registered in the period 1982-2014 with a median age of 65 years (range: 16-100 years) and a male/female ratio of 1.23:1. Patients can be registered with any of 42 different subtypes according to the World Health Organization classifications.Entities:
Keywords: clinical database; lymphoma; quality assurance; treatment
Year: 2016 PMID: 27822102 PMCID: PMC5094596 DOI: 10.2147/CLEP.S99470
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Epidemiol ISSN: 1179-1349 Impact factor: 4.790
Data recorded on four registration forms used by the Danish National Lymphoma Registry
| Registration form and time of registration | Variables |
|---|---|
| Registration form At diagnosis | Diagnosis according to WHO (2008)/ICD-10 |
| Date of diagnosis | |
| Discordant lymphoma | |
| Ann Arbor stage | |
| B-symptoms | |
| Largest tumor diameter | |
| ECOG performance status | |
| Planned treatment | |
| Participation in clinical research protocol | |
| Nodal and extranodal sites involved | |
| Laboratory values (hemoglobin, thrombocytes, leucocytes, lymphocytes, albumin, calcium, bilirubin, alanine transaminase, alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase, beta-2 microglobulin, and immunoglobulins A, G, and M) | |
| Primary treatment form At the end of first-line treatment | Chemotherapy |
| Immunotherapy | |
| Radioimmunotherapy | |
| Radiotherapy | |
| Major surgery | |
| High-dose therapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation | |
| Other treatment | |
| Response evaluation | |
| Toxicity CTC grades III and IV | |
| Relapse At the time of relapse | Date of relapse |
| Histology (new biopsy) | |
| CNS involvement at relapse | |
| Treatment | |
| Chemotherapy | |
| Immunotherapy | |
| Radioimmunotherapy | |
| Radiotherapy | |
| Major surgery | |
| High-dose therapy with autologous stem-cell transplant | |
| Other treatment | |
| Response evaluation | |
| Follow-up/death | Vital status |
| Date of follow-up/date of death | |
| Remission status | |
| Termination of outpatient follow-up |
Abbreviations: WHO, World Health Organization; ICD-10, International Classification of Diseases, tenth edition; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; CTC, common toxicity criteria; CNS, Central nervous system.
Figure 1The four registration forms and the number registered in the LYFO for each form.
Notes: All patients have a primary registration form, whereas only patients receiving treatment have a treatment form, only patients who relapse have a relapse form, and only patients where outpatient follow-up is terminated have a follow-up form.
Abbreviation: LYFO, Danish National Lymphoma Registry.
Figure 2Survival for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, comparing departments with the poorest outcome (department Y) with better performing departments (department X) in the time periods 2001–2006 and 2007–2014, showing that survival is now equal between departments.