MaryBeth B Freeman1, Lori A Pollack1, Judy R Rees2, Christopher J Johnson3, Randi K Rycroft4, David L Rousseau5, Mei-Chin Hsieh6. 1. Cancer Surveillance Branch, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. New Hampshire State Cancer Registry and the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Department of Epidemiology, Hanover, New Hampshire. 3. Cancer Data Registry of Idaho, Boise, Idaho. 4. Colorado Central Cancer Registry, Denver, Colorado. 5. Rhode Island Cancer Registry, Providence, Rhode Island. 6. Louisiana Tumor Registry and Epidemiology Program, School of Public Health, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although data on industry and occupation (I&O) are important for understanding cancer risks, obtaining standardized data is challenging. This study describes the capture of specific I&O text and the ability of a web-based tool to translate text into standardized codes. METHODS: Data on 62 525 cancers cases received from eight National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) states were submitted to a web-based coding tool developed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health for translation into standardized I&O codes. We determined the percentage of sufficiently analyzable codes generated by the tool. RESULTS: Using the web-based coding tool on data obtained from chart abstraction, the NPCR cancer registries achieved between 48% and 75% autocoding, but only 12-57% sufficiently analyzable codes. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to explore associations between work-related exposures and cancer is limited by current capture and coding of I&O data. Increased training of providers and registrars, as well as software enhancements, will improve the utility of I&O data.
BACKGROUND: Although data on industry and occupation (I&O) are important for understanding cancer risks, obtaining standardized data is challenging. This study describes the capture of specific I&O text and the ability of a web-based tool to translate text into standardized codes. METHODS: Data on 62 525 cancers cases received from eight National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) states were submitted to a web-based coding tool developed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health for translation into standardized I&O codes. We determined the percentage of sufficiently analyzable codes generated by the tool. RESULTS: Using the web-based coding tool on data obtained from chart abstraction, the NPCR cancer registries achieved between 48% and 75% autocoding, but only 12-57% sufficiently analyzable codes. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to explore associations between work-related exposures and cancer is limited by current capture and coding of I&O data. Increased training of providers and registrars, as well as software enhancements, will improve the utility of I&O data.
Authors: Karla R Armenti; Maria O Celaya; Sai Cherala; Bruce Riddle; Pamela K Schumacher; Judy R Rees Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Vivien W Chen; Christie R Eheman; Christopher J Johnson; Monique N Hernandez; David Rousseau; Timothy S Styles; Dee W West; Meichin Hsieh; Anne M Hakenewerth; Maria O Celaya; Randi K Rycroft; Jennifer M Wike; Melissa Pearson; Judy Brockhouse; Linda G Mulvihill; Kevin B Zhang Journal: J Registry Manag Date: 2014
Authors: Rebecca J Tsai; Sara E Luckhaupt; Pam Schumacher; Rosemary D Cress; Dennis M Deapen; Geoffrey M Calvert Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2014-03-31
Authors: David K Espey; Charles L Wiggins; Melissa A Jim; Barry A Miller; Christopher J Johnson; Tom M Becker Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-09-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Rebecca J Tsai; Sara E Luckhaupt; Pam Schumacher; Rosemary D Cress; Dennis M Deapen; Geoffrey M Calvert Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2015-05-06 Impact factor: 3.079
Authors: Laura A McClure; Tulay Koru-Sengul; Monique N Hernandez; Jill A Mackinnon; Natasha Schaefer Solle; Alberto J Caban-Martinez; David J Lee; Erin Kobetz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 3.240