Comparison between two cancer registry quality check systems: functional features and differences in an Italian network of cancer registries dataset
PurposeThe aim of this study was to compare the functional characteristics of two computer-based systems for quality control of cancer registry data through analysis of their output differences.MethodsThe study used cancer incidence data from 22 of the 49 registries of the Italian Network of Cancer...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023-05-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Oncology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2023.1197942/full |
| _version_ | 1797820122636746752 |
|---|---|
| author | Giovanna Tagliabue Viviana Perotti Sabrina Fabiano Andrea Tittarelli Giulio Barigelletti Paolo Contiero Walter Mazzucco Walter Mazzucco Mario Fusco Ettore Bidoli Massimo Vicentini Maria Teresa Pesce Fabrizio Stracci Fabrizio Stracci The Collaborative Working Group |
| author_facet | Giovanna Tagliabue Viviana Perotti Sabrina Fabiano Andrea Tittarelli Giulio Barigelletti Paolo Contiero Walter Mazzucco Walter Mazzucco Mario Fusco Ettore Bidoli Massimo Vicentini Maria Teresa Pesce Fabrizio Stracci Fabrizio Stracci The Collaborative Working Group |
| author_sort | Giovanna Tagliabue |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | PurposeThe aim of this study was to compare the functional characteristics of two computer-based systems for quality control of cancer registry data through analysis of their output differences.MethodsThe study used cancer incidence data from 22 of the 49 registries of the Italian Network of Cancer Registries registered between 1986 and 2017. Two different data checking systems developed by the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the Joint Research Center (JRC) with the European Network of Cancer Registries (ENCR) and routinely used by registrars were used to check the quality of the data. The outputs generated by the two systems on the same dataset of each registry were analyzed and compared.ResultsThe study included a total of 1,305,689 cancer cases. The overall quality of the dataset was high, with 86% (81.7-94.1) microscopically verified cases and only 1.3% (0.03-3.06) cases with a diagnosis by death certificate only. The two check systems identified a low percentage of errors (JRC-ENCR 0.17% and IARC 0.003%) and about the same proportion of warnings (JRC-ENCR 2.79% and IARC 2.42%) in the dataset. Forty-two cases (2% of errors) and 7067 cases (11.5% of warnings) were identified by both systems in equivalent categories. 11.7% of warnings related to TNM staging were identified by the JRC-ENCR system only. The IARC system identified mainly incorrect combination of tumor grade and morphology (72.5% of warnings).ConclusionBoth systems apply checks on a common set of variables, but some variables are checked by only one of the systems (for example, checks on patient follow-up and tumor stage at diagnosis are included by the JRC-ENCR system only). Most errors and warnings were categorized differently by the two systems, but usually described the same issues, with warnings related to “morphology” (JRC-ENCR) and “histology” (IARC) being the most frequent. It is important to find the right balance between the need to maintain high standards of data quality and the workability of such systems in the daily routine of the cancer registry. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-13T09:33:44Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-be79ad83c2c44263a04adddc5799d828 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2234-943X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-13T09:33:44Z |
| publishDate | 2023-05-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Oncology |
| spelling | doaj.art-be79ad83c2c44263a04adddc5799d8282023-05-25T19:35:38ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Oncology2234-943X2023-05-011310.3389/fonc.2023.11979421197942Comparison between two cancer registry quality check systems: functional features and differences in an Italian network of cancer registries datasetGiovanna Tagliabue0Viviana Perotti1Sabrina Fabiano2Andrea Tittarelli3Giulio Barigelletti4Paolo Contiero5Walter Mazzucco6Walter Mazzucco7Mario Fusco8Ettore Bidoli9Massimo Vicentini10Maria Teresa Pesce11Fabrizio Stracci12Fabrizio Stracci13The Collaborative Working GroupCancer Registry Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, ItalyCancer Registry Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, ItalyCancer Registry Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, ItalyCancer Registry Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, ItalyCancer Registry Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, ItalyEnvironmental Epidemiology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, ItalyClinical Epidemiology Unit and Palermo Province Cancer Registry, University Hospital “P. Giaccone”, Palermo, ItalyDepartment of Oncology and Public Health, Executive Board of the Italian Network of Cancer Registries (AIRTUM), Milan, ItalyCancer Registry Unit, ASL Napoli 3 Sud, Naples, ItalyCancer Epidemiology Unit, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico (CRO), IRCCS, Aviano, ItalyEpidemiology Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale - IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, ItalyCancer Registry Unit, ASL Caserta, Caserta, ItalyDepartment of Oncology and Public Health, Executive Board of the Italian Network of Cancer Registries (AIRTUM), Milan, ItalyUmbria Regional Cancer Registry, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, ItalyPurposeThe aim of this study was to compare the functional characteristics of two computer-based systems for quality control of cancer registry data through analysis of their output differences.MethodsThe study used cancer incidence data from 22 of the 49 registries of the Italian Network of Cancer Registries registered between 1986 and 2017. Two different data checking systems developed by the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the Joint Research Center (JRC) with the European Network of Cancer Registries (ENCR) and routinely used by registrars were used to check the quality of the data. The outputs generated by the two systems on the same dataset of each registry were analyzed and compared.ResultsThe study included a total of 1,305,689 cancer cases. The overall quality of the dataset was high, with 86% (81.7-94.1) microscopically verified cases and only 1.3% (0.03-3.06) cases with a diagnosis by death certificate only. The two check systems identified a low percentage of errors (JRC-ENCR 0.17% and IARC 0.003%) and about the same proportion of warnings (JRC-ENCR 2.79% and IARC 2.42%) in the dataset. Forty-two cases (2% of errors) and 7067 cases (11.5% of warnings) were identified by both systems in equivalent categories. 11.7% of warnings related to TNM staging were identified by the JRC-ENCR system only. The IARC system identified mainly incorrect combination of tumor grade and morphology (72.5% of warnings).ConclusionBoth systems apply checks on a common set of variables, but some variables are checked by only one of the systems (for example, checks on patient follow-up and tumor stage at diagnosis are included by the JRC-ENCR system only). Most errors and warnings were categorized differently by the two systems, but usually described the same issues, with warnings related to “morphology” (JRC-ENCR) and “histology” (IARC) being the most frequent. It is important to find the right balance between the need to maintain high standards of data quality and the workability of such systems in the daily routine of the cancer registry.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2023.1197942/fulldata qualitypopulation-based cancer registryincidencequality check systemsIARCJRC-ENCR |
| spellingShingle | Giovanna Tagliabue Viviana Perotti Sabrina Fabiano Andrea Tittarelli Giulio Barigelletti Paolo Contiero Walter Mazzucco Walter Mazzucco Mario Fusco Ettore Bidoli Massimo Vicentini Maria Teresa Pesce Fabrizio Stracci Fabrizio Stracci The Collaborative Working Group Comparison between two cancer registry quality check systems: functional features and differences in an Italian network of cancer registries dataset Frontiers in Oncology data quality population-based cancer registry incidence quality check systems IARC JRC-ENCR |
| title | Comparison between two cancer registry quality check systems: functional features and differences in an Italian network of cancer registries dataset |
| title_full | Comparison between two cancer registry quality check systems: functional features and differences in an Italian network of cancer registries dataset |
| title_fullStr | Comparison between two cancer registry quality check systems: functional features and differences in an Italian network of cancer registries dataset |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison between two cancer registry quality check systems: functional features and differences in an Italian network of cancer registries dataset |
| title_short | Comparison between two cancer registry quality check systems: functional features and differences in an Italian network of cancer registries dataset |
| title_sort | comparison between two cancer registry quality check systems functional features and differences in an italian network of cancer registries dataset |
| topic | data quality population-based cancer registry incidence quality check systems IARC JRC-ENCR |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2023.1197942/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT giovannatagliabue comparisonbetweentwocancerregistryqualitychecksystemsfunctionalfeaturesanddifferencesinanitaliannetworkofcancerregistriesdataset AT vivianaperotti comparisonbetweentwocancerregistryqualitychecksystemsfunctionalfeaturesanddifferencesinanitaliannetworkofcancerregistriesdataset AT sabrinafabiano comparisonbetweentwocancerregistryqualitychecksystemsfunctionalfeaturesanddifferencesinanitaliannetworkofcancerregistriesdataset AT andreatittarelli comparisonbetweentwocancerregistryqualitychecksystemsfunctionalfeaturesanddifferencesinanitaliannetworkofcancerregistriesdataset AT giuliobarigelletti comparisonbetweentwocancerregistryqualitychecksystemsfunctionalfeaturesanddifferencesinanitaliannetworkofcancerregistriesdataset AT paolocontiero comparisonbetweentwocancerregistryqualitychecksystemsfunctionalfeaturesanddifferencesinanitaliannetworkofcancerregistriesdataset AT waltermazzucco comparisonbetweentwocancerregistryqualitychecksystemsfunctionalfeaturesanddifferencesinanitaliannetworkofcancerregistriesdataset AT waltermazzucco comparisonbetweentwocancerregistryqualitychecksystemsfunctionalfeaturesanddifferencesinanitaliannetworkofcancerregistriesdataset AT mariofusco comparisonbetweentwocancerregistryqualitychecksystemsfunctionalfeaturesanddifferencesinanitaliannetworkofcancerregistriesdataset AT ettorebidoli comparisonbetweentwocancerregistryqualitychecksystemsfunctionalfeaturesanddifferencesinanitaliannetworkofcancerregistriesdataset AT massimovicentini comparisonbetweentwocancerregistryqualitychecksystemsfunctionalfeaturesanddifferencesinanitaliannetworkofcancerregistriesdataset AT mariateresapesce comparisonbetweentwocancerregistryqualitychecksystemsfunctionalfeaturesanddifferencesinanitaliannetworkofcancerregistriesdataset AT fabriziostracci comparisonbetweentwocancerregistryqualitychecksystemsfunctionalfeaturesanddifferencesinanitaliannetworkofcancerregistriesdataset AT fabriziostracci comparisonbetweentwocancerregistryqualitychecksystemsfunctionalfeaturesanddifferencesinanitaliannetworkofcancerregistriesdataset AT thecollaborativeworkinggroup comparisonbetweentwocancerregistryqualitychecksystemsfunctionalfeaturesanddifferencesinanitaliannetworkofcancerregistriesdataset |