Sven Löffeler1,2, Adrian Halland1, Harald Weedon-Fekjær3, Anastasia Nikitenko4, Christian Lycke Ellingsen5, Erik Skaaheim Haug1. 1. a Department of Urology , Sykehuset I Vestfold (Vestfold Hospital Trust), Halfdan Wilhelmsens Allé , Tønsberg , Norway. 2. b Department of Clinical Medicine , University of Bergen , Bergen , Norway. 3. c Department of Biostatistics , Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo , Oslo , Norway. 4. d Department of Oncology , Sykehuset I Vestfold (Vestfold Hospital Trust), Halfdan Wilhelmsens Allé , Tønsberg , Norway. 5. e Cause of Death Registry, Health Data and Digitalisation , Norwegian Institute of Public Health , Bergen , Norway.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the level of misattribution of prostate cancer deaths in Norway based on the county of Vestfold in the years 2009-2014. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 328 patients registered as dead from prostate cancer (PCD; part I of death certificate), 126 patients with prostate cancer as other significant condition at death (OCD; part II of death certificate) and 310 patients who died with a diagnosis of prostate cancer not registered on the death certificate (PC-DCneg) in Vestfold County in 2009-2014. The complete cohort with patients' names and dates of birth was provided by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and the Norwegian Cancer Registry. The true cause of death of all patients was evaluated based on patient journals. RESULTS: Over-reporting of prostate cancer deaths in the PCD group was 33% while under-reporting in the OCD and PC-DCneg groups was 19% and 5%, respectively. The correlation between registered and observed causes of death was 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.78-0.83). Misattribution of prostate cancer deaths increased significantly with patient age and decreasing Gleason score. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer mortality statistics in Norway are relatively accurate for patients aged <75 years at death. However, overall accuracy of cause of death assignment is significantly reduced by misattribution among older patients (> 75 years), who represent the large majority of prostate cancer deaths. Over-reporting of prostate cancer deaths among elderly people may not be an exclusively Norwegian phenomenon and may affect prostate cancer mortality statistics in other countries.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the level of misattribution of prostate cancer deaths in Norway based on the county of Vestfold in the years 2009-2014. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 328 patients registered as dead from prostate cancer (PCD; part I of death certificate), 126 patients with prostate cancer as other significant condition at death (OCD; part II of death certificate) and 310 patients who died with a diagnosis of prostate cancer not registered on the death certificate (PC-DCneg) in Vestfold County in 2009-2014. The complete cohort with patients' names and dates of birth was provided by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and the Norwegian Cancer Registry. The true cause of death of all patients was evaluated based on patient journals. RESULTS: Over-reporting of prostate cancer deaths in the PCD group was 33% while under-reporting in the OCD and PC-DCneg groups was 19% and 5%, respectively. The correlation between registered and observed causes of death was 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.78-0.83). Misattribution of prostate cancer deaths increased significantly with patient age and decreasing Gleason score. CONCLUSIONS:Prostate cancer mortality statistics in Norway are relatively accurate for patients aged <75 years at death. However, overall accuracy of cause of death assignment is significantly reduced by misattribution among older patients (> 75 years), who represent the large majority of prostate cancer deaths. Over-reporting of prostate cancer deaths among elderly people may not be an exclusively Norwegian phenomenon and may affect prostate cancer mortality statistics in other countries.
Entities:
Keywords:
Accuracy of death certificates; cause of death; prostate cancer; prostate cancer mortality
Authors: Chloe J Bright; Adam R Brentnall; Kate Wooldrage; Jonathon Myles; Peter Sasieni; Stephen W Duffy Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Carlos Anselmo Lima; Brenda Evelin Barreto da Silva; Evânia Curvelo Hora; Marcela Sampaio Lima; Erika de Abreu Costa Brito; Marceli de Oliveira Santos; Angela Maria da Silva; Marco Antonio Prado Nunes; Hugo Leite de Farias Brito; Marcia Maria Macedo Lima Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sanny Kappen; Geertruida H de Bock; Eunice Sirri; Claudia Vohmann; Joachim Kieschke; Alexander Winter Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Kirsti Aas; Sophie Dorothea Fosså; Tor Åge Myklebust; Bjørn Møller; Rune Kvåle; Ljiljana Vlatkovic; Viktor Berge Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-08-04 Impact factor: 4.452