Cargando…
Identifying incident cancer cases in routinely collected hospital data: a retrospective validation study
OBJECTIVE: Population-level cancer incidence data are critical for epidemiological cancer research, however provision of cancer registry data can be delayed. We previously reported that in a large population-based Australian cohort, registry-based incidence data were well matched by routinely collec...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6805366/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31639061 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4726-x |
_version_ | 1783461366339731456 |
---|---|
author | Goldsbury, David E. Weber, Marianne F. Canfell, Karen O’Connell, Dianne L. |
author_facet | Goldsbury, David E. Weber, Marianne F. Canfell, Karen O’Connell, Dianne L. |
author_sort | Goldsbury, David E. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Population-level cancer incidence data are critical for epidemiological cancer research, however provision of cancer registry data can be delayed. We previously reported that in a large population-based Australian cohort, registry-based incidence data were well matched by routinely collected hospital diagnosis data (sensitivities and positive predictive values (PPVs) > 80%) for six of the 12 most common cancer types: breast, colorectum, kidney, lung, pancreas and uterus. The available hospital data covered more recent time periods. We have since obtained more recent cancer registry data, allowing us to further test the validity of hospital diagnosis records in identifying incident cases. RESULTS: The more recent hospital diagnosis data were valid for identifying incident cases for the six cancer types, with sensitivities 81–94% and PPVs 86–96%. However, 2–10% of cases were identified > 3 months after the registry’s diagnosis date and detailed clinical cancer information was unavailable. The level of identification was generally higher for cases aged < 80 years, those with known disease stage and cases living in higher socioeconomic areas. The inclusion of death records increased sensitivity for some cancer types, but requires caution due to potential false-positive cases. This study validates the use of hospital diagnosis records for identifying incident cancer cases. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6805366 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-68053662019-10-24 Identifying incident cancer cases in routinely collected hospital data: a retrospective validation study Goldsbury, David E. Weber, Marianne F. Canfell, Karen O’Connell, Dianne L. BMC Res Notes Research Note OBJECTIVE: Population-level cancer incidence data are critical for epidemiological cancer research, however provision of cancer registry data can be delayed. We previously reported that in a large population-based Australian cohort, registry-based incidence data were well matched by routinely collected hospital diagnosis data (sensitivities and positive predictive values (PPVs) > 80%) for six of the 12 most common cancer types: breast, colorectum, kidney, lung, pancreas and uterus. The available hospital data covered more recent time periods. We have since obtained more recent cancer registry data, allowing us to further test the validity of hospital diagnosis records in identifying incident cases. RESULTS: The more recent hospital diagnosis data were valid for identifying incident cases for the six cancer types, with sensitivities 81–94% and PPVs 86–96%. However, 2–10% of cases were identified > 3 months after the registry’s diagnosis date and detailed clinical cancer information was unavailable. The level of identification was generally higher for cases aged < 80 years, those with known disease stage and cases living in higher socioeconomic areas. The inclusion of death records increased sensitivity for some cancer types, but requires caution due to potential false-positive cases. This study validates the use of hospital diagnosis records for identifying incident cancer cases. BioMed Central 2019-10-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6805366/ /pubmed/31639061 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4726-x Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Note Goldsbury, David E. Weber, Marianne F. Canfell, Karen O’Connell, Dianne L. Identifying incident cancer cases in routinely collected hospital data: a retrospective validation study |
title | Identifying incident cancer cases in routinely collected hospital data: a retrospective validation study |
title_full | Identifying incident cancer cases in routinely collected hospital data: a retrospective validation study |
title_fullStr | Identifying incident cancer cases in routinely collected hospital data: a retrospective validation study |
title_full_unstemmed | Identifying incident cancer cases in routinely collected hospital data: a retrospective validation study |
title_short | Identifying incident cancer cases in routinely collected hospital data: a retrospective validation study |
title_sort | identifying incident cancer cases in routinely collected hospital data: a retrospective validation study |
topic | Research Note |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6805366/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31639061 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4726-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT goldsburydavide identifyingincidentcancercasesinroutinelycollectedhospitaldataaretrospectivevalidationstudy AT webermariannef identifyingincidentcancercasesinroutinelycollectedhospitaldataaretrospectivevalidationstudy AT canfellkaren identifyingincidentcancercasesinroutinelycollectedhospitaldataaretrospectivevalidationstudy AT oconnelldiannel identifyingincidentcancercasesinroutinelycollectedhospitaldataaretrospectivevalidationstudy |