Comparability of stage data in cancer registries in six countries: Lessons from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership

The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership is investigating cancer survival differences between six high‐income nations using population‐based cancer registry data. Differences in overall survival are often explained by differences in the stage at diagnosis and stage‐specific survival. Compar...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of cancer 2013-02, Vol.132 (3), p.676-685
Hauptverfasser: Walters, Sarah, Maringe, Camille, Butler, John, Brierley, James D., Rachet, Bernard, Coleman, Michel P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership is investigating cancer survival differences between six high‐income nations using population‐based cancer registry data. Differences in overall survival are often explained by differences in the stage at diagnosis and stage‐specific survival. Comparing stage at diagnosis using cancer registry data is challenging because of different regional practices in defining stage, despite the existence of international staging classifications such as TNM. This paper describes how stage data may be reconciled for international analysis. Population‐based cancer registry data were collected for 2.4 million adults diagnosed with colorectal, lung, breast (women) or ovarian cancer during 1995–2007 in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The stage data received were coded to a variety of international systems, including the TNM classification, Dukes' for colorectal cancer, FIGO for ovarian cancer, and to national “localised, regional, distant” categorisations. To optimise comparability for analysis, a rigorous and repeatable process was defined to produce a final stage variable for each patient. An algorithm was also defined to map TNM, Dukes' and FIGO to a “localised, regional, distant” categorisation. We recommend how stage data should be recorded and processed to optimise comparability in population‐based international comparisons of stage‐specific cancer outcomes. The process we describe to produce comparable stage data forms a benchmark for future research. The algorithm to convert between TNM and a “localised, regional, distant” categorisation should be valuable for international studies, until global consensus is achieved to adhere to a single staging system like TNM. What's new? The way in which “stage at diagnosis” is recorded differs across the world. These variations make it difficult to conduct international comparisons of survival by stage at diagnosis using population‐based data. In this study, the authors describe the differences in how cancer stage was recorded in registries from six high‐income countries for four common cancers. They also present an approach that allows different staging systems to be reconciled for use in survival analysis and they offer seven recommendations for recording protocols to improve international comparisons of cancer outcomes.
ISSN:0020-7136
1097-0215
DOI:10.1002/ijc.27651