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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |