Comparability issues within the ITACARE data base

Eva Buiatti, Emanuele Crocetti, Ettore Conti, Fabio Falcini, Lorenzo Gafà

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims and background: The aim of the study was to describe the extent of variability among Italian cancer registries in data managing practices that may affect differences in incidence and possibly in survival estimates. Methods: a self-administered questionnaire was sent to each participating registry. The definitions of the disease, of the start point and of the end point of survival computation were investigated. Moreover, information on the proportion of histologic confirmation, of ill-defined sites and of DCO (death certificate only) was also considered. Results: There were some differences in cancer registration techniques among Italian cancer registries. As regards disease definition, the most relevant problems arose for urinary bladder. Skin melanoma should also be considered with some caution, due to variability among registries in coding in situ cases. For the CNS and meninges, the proportion of cases that could be differently considered was so limited that no effect on survival is expected. For female breast, colorectum and cervix uteri, the effect of early diagnosis services (which are active only in some areas) may lead to better survival estimates. The variability in incidence date definition was high among registries and sites, but its effect on survival was very limited. There was a wide variability in the proportion of DCOs and of DCIs (initially known from death certificate), which should be considered in survival comparisons. All the registries stated that they carried out an active follow-up of their patients. Conclusions: In general, quality standards of the registries are good and allow comparability of survival data. The variability of rules adopted by Italian registries may affect geographic survival differences only in a limited number of cancer sites, so that results should be interpreted with caution.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)25-32
Number of pages8
JournalTumori
Volume83
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1997

Fingerprint

Registries
Databases
Survival
Death Certificates
Neoplasms
Meninges
Incidence
Cervix Uteri
Early Diagnosis
Melanoma
Urinary Bladder
Breast
Skin

Keywords

  • cancer registry
  • data base
  • managing practices

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Buiatti, E., Crocetti, E., Conti, E., Falcini, F., & Gafà, L. (1997). Comparability issues within the ITACARE data base. Tumori, 83(1), 25-32.

Comparability issues within the ITACARE data base. / Buiatti, Eva; Crocetti, Emanuele; Conti, Ettore; Falcini, Fabio; Gafà, Lorenzo.

In: Tumori, Vol. 83, No. 1, 01.1997, p. 25-32.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Buiatti, E, Crocetti, E, Conti, E, Falcini, F & Gafà, L 1997, 'Comparability issues within the ITACARE data base', Tumori, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 25-32.
Buiatti E, Crocetti E, Conti E, Falcini F, Gafà L. Comparability issues within the ITACARE data base. Tumori. 1997 Jan;83(1):25-32.
Buiatti, Eva ; Crocetti, Emanuele ; Conti, Ettore ; Falcini, Fabio ; Gafà, Lorenzo. / Comparability issues within the ITACARE data base. In: Tumori. 1997 ; Vol. 83, No. 1. pp. 25-32.
@article{f89b9a4defaa4fbd95b8ce8d72f3179b,
title = "Comparability issues within the ITACARE data base",
abstract = "Aims and background: The aim of the study was to describe the extent of variability among Italian cancer registries in data managing practices that may affect differences in incidence and possibly in survival estimates. Methods: a self-administered questionnaire was sent to each participating registry. The definitions of the disease, of the start point and of the end point of survival computation were investigated. Moreover, information on the proportion of histologic confirmation, of ill-defined sites and of DCO (death certificate only) was also considered. Results: There were some differences in cancer registration techniques among Italian cancer registries. As regards disease definition, the most relevant problems arose for urinary bladder. Skin melanoma should also be considered with some caution, due to variability among registries in coding in situ cases. For the CNS and meninges, the proportion of cases that could be differently considered was so limited that no effect on survival is expected. For female breast, colorectum and cervix uteri, the effect of early diagnosis services (which are active only in some areas) may lead to better survival estimates. The variability in incidence date definition was high among registries and sites, but its effect on survival was very limited. There was a wide variability in the proportion of DCOs and of DCIs (initially known from death certificate), which should be considered in survival comparisons. All the registries stated that they carried out an active follow-up of their patients. Conclusions: In general, quality standards of the registries are good and allow comparability of survival data. The variability of rules adopted by Italian registries may affect geographic survival differences only in a limited number of cancer sites, so that results should be interpreted with caution.",
keywords = "cancer registry, data base, managing practices",
author = "Eva Buiatti and Emanuele Crocetti and Ettore Conti and Fabio Falcini and Lorenzo Gaf{\`a}",
year = "1997",
month = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "83",
pages = "25--32",
journal = "Tumori",
issn = "0300-8916",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparability issues within the ITACARE data base

AU - Buiatti, Eva

AU - Crocetti, Emanuele

AU - Conti, Ettore

AU - Falcini, Fabio

AU - Gafà, Lorenzo

PY - 1997/1

Y1 - 1997/1

N2 - Aims and background: The aim of the study was to describe the extent of variability among Italian cancer registries in data managing practices that may affect differences in incidence and possibly in survival estimates. Methods: a self-administered questionnaire was sent to each participating registry. The definitions of the disease, of the start point and of the end point of survival computation were investigated. Moreover, information on the proportion of histologic confirmation, of ill-defined sites and of DCO (death certificate only) was also considered. Results: There were some differences in cancer registration techniques among Italian cancer registries. As regards disease definition, the most relevant problems arose for urinary bladder. Skin melanoma should also be considered with some caution, due to variability among registries in coding in situ cases. For the CNS and meninges, the proportion of cases that could be differently considered was so limited that no effect on survival is expected. For female breast, colorectum and cervix uteri, the effect of early diagnosis services (which are active only in some areas) may lead to better survival estimates. The variability in incidence date definition was high among registries and sites, but its effect on survival was very limited. There was a wide variability in the proportion of DCOs and of DCIs (initially known from death certificate), which should be considered in survival comparisons. All the registries stated that they carried out an active follow-up of their patients. Conclusions: In general, quality standards of the registries are good and allow comparability of survival data. The variability of rules adopted by Italian registries may affect geographic survival differences only in a limited number of cancer sites, so that results should be interpreted with caution.

AB - Aims and background: The aim of the study was to describe the extent of variability among Italian cancer registries in data managing practices that may affect differences in incidence and possibly in survival estimates. Methods: a self-administered questionnaire was sent to each participating registry. The definitions of the disease, of the start point and of the end point of survival computation were investigated. Moreover, information on the proportion of histologic confirmation, of ill-defined sites and of DCO (death certificate only) was also considered. Results: There were some differences in cancer registration techniques among Italian cancer registries. As regards disease definition, the most relevant problems arose for urinary bladder. Skin melanoma should also be considered with some caution, due to variability among registries in coding in situ cases. For the CNS and meninges, the proportion of cases that could be differently considered was so limited that no effect on survival is expected. For female breast, colorectum and cervix uteri, the effect of early diagnosis services (which are active only in some areas) may lead to better survival estimates. The variability in incidence date definition was high among registries and sites, but its effect on survival was very limited. There was a wide variability in the proportion of DCOs and of DCIs (initially known from death certificate), which should be considered in survival comparisons. All the registries stated that they carried out an active follow-up of their patients. Conclusions: In general, quality standards of the registries are good and allow comparability of survival data. The variability of rules adopted by Italian registries may affect geographic survival differences only in a limited number of cancer sites, so that results should be interpreted with caution.

KW - cancer registry

KW - data base

KW - managing practices

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031009905&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031009905&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 9152465

AN - SCOPUS:0031009905

VL - 83

SP - 25

EP - 32

JO - Tumori

JF - Tumori

SN - 0300-8916

IS - 1

ER -