Systematic review of population‐based bladder cancer registries: How criteria heterogeneity affects the comparison of incidences
Abstract Background The population‐based registry of bladder cancer (BC) raises specific problems intrinsic to the tumor, as the inclusion of noninfiltrating, potentially malignant and multiple tumors. We performed a systematic review (PRISMA guidelines) of population‐based BC registries to obtain i...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2023-03-01
|
| Series: | Cancer Medicine |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.5494 |
| _version_ | 1797854227940245504 |
|---|---|
| author | José María Caballero José María Gili Juan Camilo Pereira Alba Gomáriz Carlos Castillo Montserrat Martín‐Baranera |
| author_facet | José María Caballero José María Gili Juan Camilo Pereira Alba Gomáriz Carlos Castillo Montserrat Martín‐Baranera |
| author_sort | José María Caballero |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background The population‐based registry of bladder cancer (BC) raises specific problems intrinsic to the tumor, as the inclusion of noninfiltrating, potentially malignant and multiple tumors. We performed a systematic review (PRISMA guidelines) of population‐based BC registries to obtain information on their geographic areas involved, last dates of real incidence of BC, and rules coding used in BC for uncertain behavior, in situ and multiple tumors. Methods Using MEDLINE and Google Scholar, we identified scientific publications of in the last 10 years in English or Spanish, whether they were related to a national or international cancer registry, provided information on registry rules, and provided data on the incidence of BC. Results After the first screening, a total of 194 references were obtained. After a second analysis, three registries were selected: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is a world registry providing real incidence of BC in the period 2008–2012. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program registered incidence until 2017 in more than 90% of the US population. Spanish Network of Cancer Registries (REDECAN) unifies 14 Spanish registries (27.4% of the population) with real incidence data from 2010 to 2015. The coding and inclusion rules have been modified, but currently, most registries include BC in situ and uncertain behavior tumors. Whenever a new case occurs 36 months after a previous diagnosis, SEER registers those as multiple incident cancers in the same location, while IARC and REDECAN only allow one cancer per location during the lifespan of the patient. Conclusions Comparison of the incidence of BC among different population‐based cancer registries is prone to bias due to the methodological differences regarding the inclusion of carcinomas in situ, indeterminate, and multiple tumors. A good cancer registry could provide better surveillance strategies for BC patients. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-09T20:03:00Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-cd60d56cad4d4b008537e2c1656a47ed |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2045-7634 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-09T20:03:00Z |
| publishDate | 2023-03-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Cancer Medicine |
| spelling | doaj.art-cd60d56cad4d4b008537e2c1656a47ed2023-04-02T20:55:01ZengWileyCancer Medicine2045-76342023-03-011267540755110.1002/cam4.5494Systematic review of population‐based bladder cancer registries: How criteria heterogeneity affects the comparison of incidencesJosé María Caballero0José María Gili1Juan Camilo Pereira2Alba Gomáriz3Carlos Castillo4Montserrat Martín‐Baranera5Department of Urology Hospital Universitari Mútua de Terrassa Terrassa Barcelona SpainDepartment of Urology Hospital Universitari Mútua de Terrassa Terrassa Barcelona SpainDepartment of Urology Hospital Universitari Mútua de Terrassa Terrassa Barcelona SpainDepartment of Urology Hospital Universitari Mútua de Terrassa Terrassa Barcelona SpainDepartment of Urology Hospital Universitari Mútua de Terrassa Terrassa Barcelona SpainDepartment of Pediatrics Obstetrics & Gynecology and Preventative Medicine at the Autonomous University of Barcelona Facultad de Medicina ‐ Edificio M, Campus Universitario UAB Barcelona SpainAbstract Background The population‐based registry of bladder cancer (BC) raises specific problems intrinsic to the tumor, as the inclusion of noninfiltrating, potentially malignant and multiple tumors. We performed a systematic review (PRISMA guidelines) of population‐based BC registries to obtain information on their geographic areas involved, last dates of real incidence of BC, and rules coding used in BC for uncertain behavior, in situ and multiple tumors. Methods Using MEDLINE and Google Scholar, we identified scientific publications of in the last 10 years in English or Spanish, whether they were related to a national or international cancer registry, provided information on registry rules, and provided data on the incidence of BC. Results After the first screening, a total of 194 references were obtained. After a second analysis, three registries were selected: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is a world registry providing real incidence of BC in the period 2008–2012. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program registered incidence until 2017 in more than 90% of the US population. Spanish Network of Cancer Registries (REDECAN) unifies 14 Spanish registries (27.4% of the population) with real incidence data from 2010 to 2015. The coding and inclusion rules have been modified, but currently, most registries include BC in situ and uncertain behavior tumors. Whenever a new case occurs 36 months after a previous diagnosis, SEER registers those as multiple incident cancers in the same location, while IARC and REDECAN only allow one cancer per location during the lifespan of the patient. Conclusions Comparison of the incidence of BC among different population‐based cancer registries is prone to bias due to the methodological differences regarding the inclusion of carcinomas in situ, indeterminate, and multiple tumors. A good cancer registry could provide better surveillance strategies for BC patients.https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.5494bladder cancercancerepidemiologyincidencepopulation‐based registry |
| spellingShingle | José María Caballero José María Gili Juan Camilo Pereira Alba Gomáriz Carlos Castillo Montserrat Martín‐Baranera Systematic review of population‐based bladder cancer registries: How criteria heterogeneity affects the comparison of incidences Cancer Medicine bladder cancer cancer epidemiology incidence population‐based registry |
| title | Systematic review of population‐based bladder cancer registries: How criteria heterogeneity affects the comparison of incidences |
| title_full | Systematic review of population‐based bladder cancer registries: How criteria heterogeneity affects the comparison of incidences |
| title_fullStr | Systematic review of population‐based bladder cancer registries: How criteria heterogeneity affects the comparison of incidences |
| title_full_unstemmed | Systematic review of population‐based bladder cancer registries: How criteria heterogeneity affects the comparison of incidences |
| title_short | Systematic review of population‐based bladder cancer registries: How criteria heterogeneity affects the comparison of incidences |
| title_sort | systematic review of population based bladder cancer registries how criteria heterogeneity affects the comparison of incidences |
| topic | bladder cancer cancer epidemiology incidence population‐based registry |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.5494 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT josemariacaballero systematicreviewofpopulationbasedbladdercancerregistrieshowcriteriaheterogeneityaffectsthecomparisonofincidences AT josemariagili systematicreviewofpopulationbasedbladdercancerregistrieshowcriteriaheterogeneityaffectsthecomparisonofincidences AT juancamilopereira systematicreviewofpopulationbasedbladdercancerregistrieshowcriteriaheterogeneityaffectsthecomparisonofincidences AT albagomariz systematicreviewofpopulationbasedbladdercancerregistrieshowcriteriaheterogeneityaffectsthecomparisonofincidences AT carloscastillo systematicreviewofpopulationbasedbladdercancerregistrieshowcriteriaheterogeneityaffectsthecomparisonofincidences AT montserratmartinbaranera systematicreviewofpopulationbasedbladdercancerregistrieshowcriteriaheterogeneityaffectsthecomparisonofincidences |