Literature DB >> 30290998

Comparison of cancer diagnosis recording between the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, Cancer Registry and Hospital Episodes Statistics.

Chanpreet S Arhi1, Alex Bottle2, Elaine M Burns1, Jonathan M Clarke1, Paul Aylin3, Paul Ziprin1, Ara Darzi1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) is a large electronic dataset of primary care medical records. For the purpose of epidemiological studies, it is necessary to ensure accuracy and completeness of cancer diagnoses in CPRD.
METHOD: Cases included had a colorectal, oesophagogastric (OG), breast, prostate or lung cancer diagnosis recorded in a least one of CPRD, Cancer Registry (CR) or Hospital Episodes Statistics(HES) between 2000 and 2013. Agreement in diagnosis between the datasets, difference in dates, survival at one and five-years, and whether patient characteristics differed according to the dataset or the timing of diagnosis were investigated.
RESULTS: 116,769 patients were included. For each cancer, approximately 10% of cases identified from CPRD or HES were not confirmed in the CR. 25.5% colorectal, 26.0% OG, 8.9% breast, 32.0% lung and 18.6% prostate cases identified from the CR were missing in CPRD. The diagnosis date was recorded later in CPRD compared with CR for each cancer, ranging from 81.1% for prostate to 59.6% for colorectal, especially if the diagnosis was an emergency. Compared with the CR and HES, the adjusted risk of a missing diagnosis in CPRD was significantly higher if the patient was older, had more co-morbidities or was diagnosed as an emergency. Survival at one and five-years was highest for CPRD.
CONCLUSION: Patient demographics and the route of diagnosis impact the accuracy of cancer diagnosis in CPRD. Although CPRD provides invaluable primary care data, patients should ideally be identified from the CR to reduce bias.
Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Accuracy of diagnosis; Cancer registry; Clinical practice research datalink; Hospital episodes statistics; Survival

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30290998     DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2018.08.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol        ISSN: 1877-7821            Impact factor:   2.984


  7 in total

1.  Consolidation of Cancer Registry and Administrative Claims Data on Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment in the US Military Health System.

Authors:  Yvonne L Eaglehouse; Amie B Park; Matthew W Georg; Derek W Brown; Jie Lin; Stephanie Shao; Julie A Bytnar; Craig D Shriver; Kangmin Zhu
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2020-10

2.  Cardiotoxicity of Use of Sequential Aromatase Inhibitors in Women With Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Farzin Khosrow-Khavar; Nathaniel Bouganim; Kristian B Filion; Samy Suissa; Laurent Azoulay
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Medium and long-term risks of specific cardiovascular diseases in survivors of 20 adult cancers: a population-based cohort study using multiple linked UK electronic health records databases.

Authors:  Helen Strongman; Sarah Gadd; Anthony Matthews; Kathryn E Mansfield; Susannah Stanway; Alexander R Lyon; Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva; Liam Smeeth; Krishnan Bhaskaran
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 202.731

4.  Impact of Barrett oesophagus diagnoses and endoscopies on oesophageal cancer survival in the UK: A cohort study.

Authors:  Judith Offman; Francesca Pesola; Rebecca C Fitzgerald; Willie Hamilton; Peter Sasieni
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-12-16       Impact factor: 4.452

5.  PM2.5 promotes β cell damage by increasing inflammatory factors in mice with streptozotocin.

Authors:  Baoyu Zhang; Ruili Yin; Jianan Lang; Longyan Yang; Dong Zhao; Yan Ma
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 2.447

6.  What are the implications of using individual and combined sources of routinely collected data to identify and characterise incident site-specific cancers? a concordance and validation study using linked English electronic health records data.

Authors:  Helen Strongman; Rachael Williams; Krishnan Bhaskaran
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-08-20       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Socioeconomic deprivation and regional variation in Hodgkin's lymphoma incidence in the UK: a population-based cohort study of 10 million individuals.

Authors:  Meena Rafiq; Andrew Hayward; Charlotte Warren-Gash; S Denaxas; Arturo Gonzalez-Izquierdo; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; Sara Thomas
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-09-20       Impact factor: 2.692

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.