Case completeness and data accuracy in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Program of Cancer Registries

Abstract

BACKGROUND. Issues of case completeness (CC) and data quality within the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR)‐Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR‐CSS) are assessed in part by the NPCR Technical Assistance and Audit Program (NPCR‐TAA). In addition, the NPCR Annual Program Evaluation Instrument (NPCR‐APEI) provides information about NPCR‐supported central cancer registries (CCRs). The current report includes a unique, national‐level analysis of NPCR‐TAA results linked with NPCR‐APEI data and other covariates. METHODS. NPCR‐TAA results for 34 CCRs were aggregated across diagnosis years 1998 to 2001 for analysis of average CC rates and site‐specific data accuracy (DA) rates by covariates obtained from the NPCR‐APEI, United States Cancer Statistics (USCS) publications, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) Web site. Site‐specific DA rates were calculated for the 13 data elements examined in the audit program. Small‐sample Student t tests were used to determine statistically significant differences in covariates (α = .05). RESULTS. Overall, the average CC and DA rates were 96.4% and 95%, respectively. Both site‐ and data element‐specific DA issues were highlighted. Higher CC and DA rates were observed for CCRs that were staffed with more certified tumor registrars, had supplementary sources reporting, and met USCS publication standards and/or achieved NAACCR certification. CONCLUSIONS. Study findings underscored the importance of CCRs having adequate, well‐trained staff, procuring supplemental reporting sources, and attaining compliance with national data standards. The study results also demonstrated the overall high completeness and quality of NPCR‐CSS data and provided guidance to users of the data. Cancer 2007. © 2007 American Cancer Society.

Physical Activity and Survival after Diagnosis of Invasive Breast Cancer

“…The interview included questions regarding prediagnostic information on established and emerging risk factors for breast cancer, including physical activity. In addition, screening history, tumor staging, and histology [from state cancer registries (14)] and treatment (selfreported and from state cancer registries) information were available. Overall participation rates exceeded 80% among eligible women in the parent case-control study (11,15).…”

Burden of cervical cancer in the United States, 1998-2003

“…Finally, bias may exist in the collection of information on cancer stage and may affect rates, particularly for unstaged cancers; accuracy of cancer registry data on stage at diagnosis is relatively low compared with other demographic variables. 51 Another limitation may be that population denominators include all women, not just those with an intact cervix and therefore at risk for cervical carcinoma. In 2006, Merrill estimated cervical cancer rates in SEER by using data from Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the Hispanic/Latino Identification Algorithm and excluding women who underwent hysterectomies from the denominator; in that report, the rates of cervical cancer and racial disparities increased substantially.…”

The American Heart Association's Recommendations for Expanding the Applications of Existing and Future Clinical Registries

“…In 1 study, case completeness and data accuracy improved with interventions to ensure adequate training of staff, use of supplementary source reporting, conformity with published standards such as those developed by the AHA and American College of Cardiology Foundation, and achievement of national certification. 10 Additional methods for ensuring data accuracy and consistency include the use of site visits, chart reviews, clarifications of all discrepancies, core laboratories, and critical events committees. Such steps help ensure uniformity in definitions and high-quality data, although these safeguards may be cost prohibitive, especially in the case of registries for large patient populations.…”