A systematic review of methods to estimate colorectal cancer incidence using population-based cancer registries

Abstract

Background Epidemiological studies of incidence play an essential role in quantifying disease burden, resource planning, and informing public health policies. A variety of measures for estimating cancer incidence have been used. Appropriate reporting of incidence calculations is essential to enable clear interpretation. This review uses colorectal cancer (CRC) as an exemplar to summarize and describe variation in commonly employed incidence measures and evaluate the quality of reporting incidence methods. Methods We searched four databases for CRC incidence studies published between January 2010 and May 2020. Two independent reviewers screened all titles and abstracts. Eligible studies were population-based cancer registry studies evaluating CRC incidence. We extracted data on study characteristics and author-defined criteria for assessing the quality of reporting incidence. We used descriptive statistics to summarize the information. Results This review retrieved 165 relevant articles. The age-standardized incidence rate (ASR) (80%) was the most commonly reported incidence measure, and the 2000 U.S. standard population the most commonly used reference population (39%). Slightly more than half (54%) of the studies reported CRC incidence stratified by anatomical site. The quality of reporting incidence methods was suboptimal. Of all included studies: 45 (27%) failed to report the classification system used to define CRC; 63 (38%) did not report CRC codes; and only 20 (12%) documented excluding certain CRC cases from the numerator. Concerning the denominator estimation: 61% of studies failed to state the source of population data; 24 (15%) indicated census years; 10 (6%) reported the method used to estimate yearly population counts; and only 5 (3%) explicitly explained the population size estimation procedure to calculate the overall average incidence rate. Thirty-three (20%) studies reported the confidence interval for incidence, and only 7 (4%) documented methods for dealing with missing data. Conclusion This review identified variations in incidence calculation and inadequate reporting of methods. We outlined recommendations to optimize incidence estimation and reporting practices. There is a need to establish clear guidelines for incidence reporting to facilitate assessment of the validity and interpretation of reported incidence.

Declining hip fracture burden in Sweden 1998–2019 and consequences for projections through 2050

“…The methodological issues we faced in ascertaining hip fracture cases in a large population are relevant for other disease endpoints for which it is essential to identify incident cases of disease, e.g., myocardial infarction 4 , 72 , stroke 5 , 73 , colorectal cancer 74 , pneumonia 6 , and different types of injuries 7 . Methodology for accurate estimates requires an ascertainment algorithm validated against individual medical records.…”

Statistical methods for measuring trends in colorectal cancer incidence in registries: A systematic review

“…In cancer studies, the quality and reliability of the cancer registry data are essential for evaluating cancer trends. It was not within the scope of the current review to examine data quality reporting; yet, in a previous publication, we assessed reporting quality in CRC incidence studies and noted a substantial deficit in reporting registry-data quality control procedures and findings ( 10 ).…”

“…The current study was conducted in parallel with a comprehensive review describing incidence rate measures and evaluating the quality of reporting incidence methods ( 10 ).…”

Quality of Data in Population-Based Cancer Registry and its Implications for Cancer Control: A Cross-Sectional Study in Northern Tanzania

“…However, challenges persist in achieving high-quality data, especially in resource-limited settings like Tanzania. Despite these efforts, poor data quality remains a significant issue, particularly in Africa, which affects international comparisons of cancer incidence rates (14). The need to enhance both the quantity and quality of population-based cancer registries becomes evident, particularly in resource-constrained settings, to effectively prevent and control the cancer burden (7).…”