Eero Pukkala1,2, Gerda Engholm3, Lise Kristine Højsgaard Schmidt4, Hans Storm3, Staffan Khan5, Mats Lambe6,7, David Pettersson5, Elínborg Ólafsdóttir8, Laufey Tryggvadóttir8,9, Tiina Hakanen1, Nea Malila1,2, Anni Virtanen1,10, Tom Børge Johannesen11, Siri Larønningen11, Giske Ursin11. 1. a Finnish Cancer Registry , Institute for Statistical and Epidemiological Cancer Research , Helsinki , Finland. 2. b Faculty of Social Sciences , University of Tampere , Tampere , Finland. 3. c Danish Cancer Society , Copenhagen , Denmark. 4. d Danish Cancer Registry , The Danish Health Data Authority , Copenhagen , Denmark. 5. e Swedish Cancer Registry , the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare , Stockholm , Sweden. 6. f Regional Cancer Centre Uppsala-Örebro , Uppsala , Sweden. 7. g Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics , Karolinska Institutet , Stockholm , Sweden. 8. h Icelandic Cancer Registry , Icelandic Cancer Society , Reykjavik , Iceland. 9. i Faculty of Medicine , University of Iceland , Reykjavik , Iceland. 10. j Department of Pathology , University of Helsinki and HUSLAB, Helsinki University Hospital , Helsinki , Finland. 11. k Cancer Registry of Norway , Oslo , Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Nordic Cancer Registries are among the oldest population-based registries in the world, with more than 60 years of complete coverage of what is now a combined population of 26 million. However, despite being the source of a substantial number of studies, there is no published paper comparing the different registries. Therefore, we did a systematic review to identify similarities and dissimilarities of the Nordic Cancer Registries, which could possibly explain some of the differences in cancer incidence rates across these countries. METHODS: We describe and compare here the core characteristics of each of the Nordic Cancer Registries: (i) data sources; (ii) registered disease entities and deviations from IARC multiple cancer coding rules; (iii) variables and related coding systems. Major changes over time are described and discussed. RESULTS: All Nordic Cancer Registries represent a high quality standard in terms of completeness and accuracy of the registered data. CONCLUSIONS: Even though the information in the Nordic Cancer Registries in general can be considered more similar than any other collection of data from five different countries, there are numerous differences in registration routines, classification systems and inclusion of some tumors. These differences are important to be aware of when comparing time trends in the Nordic countries.
BACKGROUND: The Nordic Cancer Registries are among the oldest population-based registries in the world, with more than 60 years of complete coverage of what is now a combined population of 26 million. However, despite being the source of a substantial number of studies, there is no published paper comparing the different registries. Therefore, we did a systematic review to identify similarities and dissimilarities of the Nordic Cancer Registries, which could possibly explain some of the differences in cancer incidence rates across these countries. METHODS: We describe and compare here the core characteristics of each of the Nordic Cancer Registries: (i) data sources; (ii) registered disease entities and deviations from IARC multiple cancer coding rules; (iii) variables and related coding systems. Major changes over time are described and discussed. RESULTS: All Nordic Cancer Registries represent a high quality standard in terms of completeness and accuracy of the registered data. CONCLUSIONS: Even though the information in the Nordic Cancer Registries in general can be considered more similar than any other collection of data from five different countries, there are numerous differences in registration routines, classification systems and inclusion of some tumors. These differences are important to be aware of when comparing time trends in the Nordic countries.
Authors: V Stefansdottir; H Skirton; O Th Johannsson; H Olafsdottir; G H Olafsdottir; L Tryggvadottir; J J Jonsson Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Amit Sud; Subhayan Chattopadhyay; Hauke Thomsen; Kristina Sundquist; Jan Sundquist; Richard S Houlston; Kari Hemminki Journal: Blood Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Cari M Kitahara; Dagrun Slettebø Daltveit; Anders Ekbom; Anders Engeland; Mika Gissler; Ingrid Glimelius; Tom Grotmol; Ylva Trolle Lagerros; Laura Madanat-Harjuoja; Tuija Männistö; Henrik Toft Sørensen; Rebecca Troisi; Tone Bjørge Journal: Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol Date: 2020-12-18 Impact factor: 32.069
Authors: Mayu Hosio; Elina Urpilainen; Ari Hautakoski; Mikko Marttila; Martti Arffman; Reijo Sund; Anne Ahtikoski; Ulla Puistola; Esa Läärä; Peeter Karihtala; Arja Jukkola Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Eerik E E Santala; Miia Artama; Eero Pukkala; Kala Visvanathan; Synnöve Staff; Teemu J Murtola Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 6.639