Completeness of case ascertainment and survival time error in English cancer registries: impact on 1-year survival estimates

Abstract

Background:It has been suggested that cancer registries in England are too dependent on processing of information from death certificates, and consequently that cancer survival statistics reported for England are systematically biased and too low.Methods:We have linked routine cancer registration records for colorectal, lung, and breast cancer patients with information from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database for the period 2001–2007. Based on record linkage with the HES database, records missing in the cancer register were identified, and dates of diagnosis were revised. The effects of those revisions on the estimated survival time and proportion of patients surviving for 1 year or more were studied. Cases that were absent in the cancer register and present in the HES data with a relevant diagnosis code and a relevant surgery code were used to estimate (a) the completeness of the cancer register. Differences in survival times calculated from the two data sources were used to estimate (b) the possible extent of error in the recorded survival time in the cancer register. Finally, we combined (a) and (b) to estimate (c) the resulting differences in 1-year cumulative survival estimates.Results:Completeness of case ascertainment in English cancer registries is high, around 98–99%. Using HES data added 1.9%, 0.4% and 2.0% to the number of colorectal, lung, and breast cancer registrations, respectively. Around 5–6% of rapidly fatal cancer registrations had survival time extended by more than a month, and almost 3% of rapidly fatal breast cancer records were extended by more than a year. The resulting impact on estimates of 1-year survival was small, amounting to 1.0, 0.8, and 0.4 percentage points for colorectal, lung, and breast cancer, respectively.Interpretation:English cancer registration data cannot be dismissed as unfit for the purpose of cancer survival analysis. However, investigators should retain a critical attitude to data quality and sources of error in international cancer survival studies.

40-year trends in an index of survival for all cancers combined and survival adjusted for age and sex for each cancer in England and Wales, 1971–2011: a population-based study

“…[21][22][23] This improvement cannot explain long-term trends in cancer survival. 24,25 Furthermore, with the exception of bladder cancer, overall changes in disease defi nitions are limited, even for haemopoietic malignancies.…”

Adiposity and breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women: Results from the UK Biobank prospective cohort

“…Self‐reported measures of adiposity such as weight tend to be underestimated, especially among overweight and obese women 10. Other strengths include our prospective design, large sample size and virtually complete follow‐up 35. The availability of a wide range of known and putative risk factors for breast cancer allowed us to address potential bias and confounding.…”

Health-Related Quality of Life After Colorectal Cancer in England: A Patient-Reported Outcomes Study of Individuals 12 to 36 Months After Diagnosis

“…We estimate that more than 98% of all eligible individuals were identified. 14 Results from the pilot study demonstrated that HRQL and physical problems remained relatively constant with time (between 12 and 60 months after diagnosis) 12 ; hence, only patients who were 12 to 36 months after diagnosis were included. Individuals were sent a questionnaire accompanied by a letter from their treating cancer center.…”