Cargando…

Validation of prostate‐specific antigen laboratory values recorded in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries

BACKGROUND: Researchers have used prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) values collected by central cancer registries to evaluate tumors for potential aggressive clinical disease. An independent study collecting PSA values suggested a high error rate (18%) related to implied decimal points. To evaluate th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Adamo, Margaret (Peggy), Boten, Jessica A., Coyle, Linda M., Cronin, Kathleen A., Lam, Clara J. K., Negoita, Serban, Penberthy, Lynne, Stevens, Jennifer L., Ward, Kevin C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5293616/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27783399
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30401
_version_ 1782505110637641728
author Adamo, Margaret (Peggy)
Boten, Jessica A.
Coyle, Linda M.
Cronin, Kathleen A.
Lam, Clara J. K.
Negoita, Serban
Penberthy, Lynne
Stevens, Jennifer L.
Ward, Kevin C.
author_facet Adamo, Margaret (Peggy)
Boten, Jessica A.
Coyle, Linda M.
Cronin, Kathleen A.
Lam, Clara J. K.
Negoita, Serban
Penberthy, Lynne
Stevens, Jennifer L.
Ward, Kevin C.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Researchers have used prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) values collected by central cancer registries to evaluate tumors for potential aggressive clinical disease. An independent study collecting PSA values suggested a high error rate (18%) related to implied decimal points. To evaluate the error rate in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, a comprehensive review of PSA values recorded across all SEER registries was performed. METHODS: Consolidated PSA values for eligible prostate cancer cases in SEER registries were reviewed and compared with text documentation from abstracted records. Four types of classification errors were identified: implied decimal point errors, abstraction or coding implementation errors, nonsignificant errors, and changes related to “unknown” values. RESULTS: A total of 50,277 prostate cancer cases diagnosed in 2012 were reviewed. Approximately 94.15% of cases did not have meaningful changes (85.85% correct, 5.58% with a nonsignificant change of <1 ng/mL, and 2.80% with no clinical change). Approximately 5.70% of cases had meaningful changes (1.93% due to implied decimal point errors, 1.54% due to abstract or coding errors, and 2.23% due to errors related to unknown categories). Only 419 of the original 50,277 cases (0.83%) resulted in a change in disease stage due to a corrected PSA value. CONCLUSIONS: The implied decimal error rate was only 1.93% of all cases in the current validation study, with a meaningful error rate of 5.81%. The reasons for the lower error rate in SEER are likely due to ongoing and rigorous quality control and visual editing processes by the central registries. The SEER program currently is reviewing and correcting PSA values back to 2004 and will re‐release these data in the public use research file. Cancer 2017;123:697–703. © 2016 American Cancer Society.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5293616
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52936162017-03-08 Validation of prostate‐specific antigen laboratory values recorded in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries Adamo, Margaret (Peggy) Boten, Jessica A. Coyle, Linda M. Cronin, Kathleen A. Lam, Clara J. K. Negoita, Serban Penberthy, Lynne Stevens, Jennifer L. Ward, Kevin C. Cancer Communication BACKGROUND: Researchers have used prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) values collected by central cancer registries to evaluate tumors for potential aggressive clinical disease. An independent study collecting PSA values suggested a high error rate (18%) related to implied decimal points. To evaluate the error rate in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, a comprehensive review of PSA values recorded across all SEER registries was performed. METHODS: Consolidated PSA values for eligible prostate cancer cases in SEER registries were reviewed and compared with text documentation from abstracted records. Four types of classification errors were identified: implied decimal point errors, abstraction or coding implementation errors, nonsignificant errors, and changes related to “unknown” values. RESULTS: A total of 50,277 prostate cancer cases diagnosed in 2012 were reviewed. Approximately 94.15% of cases did not have meaningful changes (85.85% correct, 5.58% with a nonsignificant change of <1 ng/mL, and 2.80% with no clinical change). Approximately 5.70% of cases had meaningful changes (1.93% due to implied decimal point errors, 1.54% due to abstract or coding errors, and 2.23% due to errors related to unknown categories). Only 419 of the original 50,277 cases (0.83%) resulted in a change in disease stage due to a corrected PSA value. CONCLUSIONS: The implied decimal error rate was only 1.93% of all cases in the current validation study, with a meaningful error rate of 5.81%. The reasons for the lower error rate in SEER are likely due to ongoing and rigorous quality control and visual editing processes by the central registries. The SEER program currently is reviewing and correcting PSA values back to 2004 and will re‐release these data in the public use research file. Cancer 2017;123:697–703. © 2016 American Cancer Society. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-10-26 2017-02-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5293616/ /pubmed/27783399 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30401 Text en © 2016 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Communication
Adamo, Margaret (Peggy)
Boten, Jessica A.
Coyle, Linda M.
Cronin, Kathleen A.
Lam, Clara J. K.
Negoita, Serban
Penberthy, Lynne
Stevens, Jennifer L.
Ward, Kevin C.
Validation of prostate‐specific antigen laboratory values recorded in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries
title Validation of prostate‐specific antigen laboratory values recorded in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries
title_full Validation of prostate‐specific antigen laboratory values recorded in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries
title_fullStr Validation of prostate‐specific antigen laboratory values recorded in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries
title_full_unstemmed Validation of prostate‐specific antigen laboratory values recorded in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries
title_short Validation of prostate‐specific antigen laboratory values recorded in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries
title_sort validation of prostate‐specific antigen laboratory values recorded in surveillance, epidemiology, and end results registries
topic Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5293616/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27783399
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30401
work_keys_str_mv AT validationofprostatespecificantigenlaboratoryvaluesrecordedinsurveillanceepidemiologyandendresultsregistries
AT adamomargaretpeggy validationofprostatespecificantigenlaboratoryvaluesrecordedinsurveillanceepidemiologyandendresultsregistries
AT botenjessicaa validationofprostatespecificantigenlaboratoryvaluesrecordedinsurveillanceepidemiologyandendresultsregistries
AT coylelindam validationofprostatespecificantigenlaboratoryvaluesrecordedinsurveillanceepidemiologyandendresultsregistries
AT croninkathleena validationofprostatespecificantigenlaboratoryvaluesrecordedinsurveillanceepidemiologyandendresultsregistries
AT lamclarajk validationofprostatespecificantigenlaboratoryvaluesrecordedinsurveillanceepidemiologyandendresultsregistries
AT negoitaserban validationofprostatespecificantigenlaboratoryvaluesrecordedinsurveillanceepidemiologyandendresultsregistries
AT penberthylynne validationofprostatespecificantigenlaboratoryvaluesrecordedinsurveillanceepidemiologyandendresultsregistries
AT stevensjenniferl validationofprostatespecificantigenlaboratoryvaluesrecordedinsurveillanceepidemiologyandendresultsregistries
AT wardkevinc validationofprostatespecificantigenlaboratoryvaluesrecordedinsurveillanceepidemiologyandendresultsregistries