Abstract
Background
Population-based cancer quality registries are of great importance for the improvement of cancer care. However, little is known about the quality of recurrence data in cancer quality registries. The aim of this study was to evaluate data quality in the regional Breast Cancer Quality Registry of Central Sweden, with emphasis on the validity of recorded information on recurrence.
Methods
Validation by re-abstraction was performed on a random sample of 800 women with primary invasive breast cancer stage I-III diagnosed between 1993 and 2010, of which 400 had at least one registered recurrence and 400 had no registered recurrence. Registry data were compared with data from medical records. Exact agreement, correlation and kappa values, sensitivity and specificity were calculated.
Results
Seven hundred forty-seven women (93%) were available for analysis. Exact agreement was high for diagnostics, tumor characteristics, surgery, and adjuvant oncological treatment (90% or more for most variables). The registry’s sensitivity was low for regional recurrence (47%), but higher for local and distant recurrence (80% and 75%), whereas specificity was overall high (≥ 95%). Combining all recurrence categories irrespective of localization improved sensitivity to 90% with a specificity of 91%. In 87% of women, the date of first recurrence according to medical records fell within ± 90 days of the date recorded in the registry.
Conclusions
While the quality of data in the regional Breast Cancer Quality Registry was generally high, data accuracy on recurrences was lower. The overall precision of identifying any recurrence, irrespective of localization, was high. However, the accuracy of classification of recurrences (local, regional or distant) was lower, with evidence of underreporting for each of the recurrence categories. Given the importance of recurrence-related outcomes in the assessment of quality of care, efforts should be made to improve the reporting of recurrences.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-024-12073-4.
Keywords: Breast cancer, Quality registry, Validation, Data accuracy, Follow-up studies
Background
Cancer clinical quality registries are being increasingly used to provide data for quality assurance and research [1, 2], which makes the presence of high data quality essential [3–8]. Completeness, timeliness, comparability, and validity are considered the four key dimensions of data quality [9, 10].
Sweden, as well as other Nordic countries, has a long tradition of population-based clinical quality registries, facilitated by the unique personal identity numbers assigned to all citizens. The regional Breast Cancer Quality Registry (BCQR) of Central Sweden (the Uppsala-Örebro region) was founded in 1992 and has been part of the Swedish National BCQR since 2008. Including data on diagnostics, tumor characteristics and treatment, the quality registry represents an important complement to information in the Swedish Cancer Register, to which reporting is mandatory. Results from studies based on information in Swedish and international quality registries have had an important impact on clinical practice [11–15].
Primary tumor and treatment variables have previously been validated in different population-based regional or national cancer quality registries [16–20]. A recent validation of the Swedish National Breast Cancer Quality Registry reported high completeness (99.9%) and high comparability, while timeliness was affected by delayed reporting [21]. High validity has been reported for variables concerning diagnostics, tumor characteristics, surgery, and adjuvant treatment with an excellent agreement of approximately 95% for most treatment variables [21, 22].
Rates of recurrence and progression-free survival represent central indicators of quality in oncological care. However, little is known about the quality of recurrence data in cancer quality registries. In the three large national cancer registries in the United States, recurrence information is either not collected, or considered too unreliable to be made publicly available [23, 24]. In the Danish Breast Cancer Group (DBCG) registry, the completeness of recurrence registration was only 64–68% when patients outside of clinical trials were included [16, 18]. A validation of registry data for patients with non-invasive breast cancer in a Swedish regional BCQR showed that the proportion of registered local recurrences was 65% [25]. The value of data collected in the Swedish National and Regional Breast Cancer Quality Registries would increase substantially if it could be determined that recurrences are registered in a reliable way.
The validity of registry data on recurrence of invasive breast cancer has not previously been assessed in the national or regional Swedish BCQR. The aim of this study was to evaluate the data quality in the regional BCQR of Central Sweden, with emphasis on the validity of recorded information on local, regional and distant recurrence.
Methods
Established in 1992, the regional BCQR of Central Sweden is a population-based registry covering a population of approximately 2 million inhabitants in seven counties. It is one of six regional registries that together constitute the national BCQR, administered by the confederation of Regional Cancer Centers (RCC). The primary aim of the registry is to include all new incident cases of breast cancer, with information on date of diagnosis, stage, biomarkers, primary treatment and recurrence. While reporting to the BCQR is not obligatory, the completeness of the primary registration of the diagnosis exceeds 99% when compared to the Swedish National Cancer Register [21], to which reporting is mandated by law. Breast cancer cases initiated by death certificates are not included in the BCQR. Follow-up registration of recurrence events was introduced in 2000, and retrospective reporting of prior recurrences was recommended when the variable was introduced. Both intended and given adjuvant treatment are registered. Before 2007, only intended treatment was reported.
For the purpose of the present data validation study, 400 women with at least one registered recurrence, and 400 women with no registered recurrence were randomly selected from the registry. For both groups, women were equally distributed over the seven counties in Central Sweden. Criteria for inclusion were women with primary invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 1993 and 2010, stage I-III disease and age ≤ 80 years. Women not treated with primary surgery and those who had emigrated were excluded.
The validity of information in the registry was assessed by re-abstraction of data from medical records, which were reviewed at seven hospitals between March, 2016 and February, 2017. Re-abstraction was performed by an oncology resident (S.P.), and a nurse with experience in registry validation. S.P. was employed by the Department of Oncology at Örebro University Hospital (a reporting unit), but had no affiliation with the BCQR or RCC. The other re-abstractor had no affiliation with either the reporting units or the BCQR. Both re-abstractors were blinded to the patients’ recurrence status as reported in the registry. Information from medical records was collected for a pre-determined set of variables and registered in a standardized manner in a specific electronic form. Re-abstracted data included diagnostics and primary surgery, tumor characteristics, adjuvant oncological treatment, and follow-up. Recurrences were categorized as local, regional, and distant. Variables included in the validation are presented in Supplementary Table S1. End of follow-up was set to December 31, 2015. The median follow-up time was 107.8 months (interquartile range: 61.2 to 161.3 months).
Date of diagnosis was defined as the date of sampling of the first diagnostic biopsy. If the exact date of diagnosis could not be determined, it was replaced with date of surgery. When information on exact date of recurrence was missing in the medical records, it was replaced with an approximate date for statistical analysis.
Any case of new invasive breast cancer in the ipsilateral breast was defined as a local recurrence. A previous diagnosis of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer warranted exclusion as the index tumor was considered a recurrence.
If the re-abstractor had difficulties classifying any variable, the case was reviewed by two experienced breast cancer oncologists (J.A., C.B.), who made the final decision.
The re-abstracted information from medical records was compared with corresponding data from the original registration. Exact agreement was calculated as well as Pearson correlation for numerical variables and Cohen’s kappa for categorical variables. Exact agreement was defined as the proportion of posts where the information in the registry was identical to re-abstracted data. For date of diagnosis, agreement was calculated both for exact date and for a time interval of ± 30 days. For date of recurrence, agreement was estimated for exact date and for time intervals of ± 30 and ± 90 days. In addition to the existing recurrence variables in the registry, a new recurrence variable (“any recurrence”) was constructed by combining all recurrence categories into one. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for treatment and recurrence variables, including the new composite recurrence variable. For all point estimates, 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. A Bland-Altman plot was constructed to assess the comparability between the information in the registry and medical records regarding time to first recurrence. Data management and random sampling was performed using SAS 9.4. Statistical analyses were performed in SPSS version 25 and R 3.5.1 and 4.3.2.
The study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board at Uppsala University (2015/487).
Results
Medical records could be retrieved for 97.9% of all women, whereas 0.4% was excluded since available information in medical records were deemed insufficient for the purpose of validation. After exclusion of patients who did not fulfill inclusion criteria (3.8%) or could not be evaluated for recurrence (0.4%), 747 women remained for analysis. The process of selection and exclusion of patients for review is shown in Fig. 1. General characteristics of the study population are presented in Table 1.
Fig. 1.
Process of selection and exclusion of patients for review
Table 1.
General characteristics of the validation sample according to the registry (n = 747)
| Characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Age in years at diagnosis | |
| Mean (SD) | 58.9 (11.6) |
| Median | 59 |
| Range | 25–80 |
| Age at diagnosis | No of patients (%) |
| < 50 years | 165 (22.1) |
| 50–59 years | 217 (29.0) |
| 60–69 years | 207 (27.7) |
| 70–80 years | 158 (21.2) |
| Year of diagnosis | No of patients (%) |
| 1993–1998 | 280 (37.5) |
| 1999–2004 | 238 (31.9) |
| 2005–2010 | 229 (30.7) |
| Tumor size | No of patients (%) |
| ≤ 2 cm | 461 (61.7) |
| > 2 to ≤ 5 cm | 243 (32.5) |
| > 5 cm | 38 (5.1) |
| Unknown | 5 (0.7) |
| No of metastatic lymph nodes | No of patients (%) |
| 0 | 406 (54.4) |
| 1–3 | 171 (22.9) |
| 4–9 | 92 (12.3) |
| ≥ 10 | 36 (4.8) |
| Unknown | 42 (5.6) |
| Histological grade | No of patients (%) |
| I | 112 (15.0) |
| II | 276 (36.9) |
| III | 168 (22.5) |
| Unknown (missing or non-evaluable) | 191 (25.6) |
| Estrogen receptor (ER) status | No of patients (%) |
| Positive | 564 (75.5) |
| Negative | 165 (22.1) |
| Unknown (missing or non-evaluable) | 18 (2.4) |
| Progesterone receptor (PR) status | No of patients (%) |
| Positive | 480 (64.3) |
| Negative | 248 (33.2) |
| Unknown (missing or non-evaluable) | 19 (2.5) |
| HER2 status | No of patients (%) |
| Positive | 76 (10.2) |
| Negative | 392 (52.5) |
| Unknown (missing or non-evaluable) | 279 (37.3) |
| Laterality | No of patients (%) |
| Right | 386 (51.7) |
| Left | 345 (46.2) |
| Unknown | 16 (2.1) |
| Type of breast surgery | No of patients (%) |
| Breast-conserving | 443 (59.3) |
| Mastectomy | 292 (39.1) |
| Unknown | 12 (1.6) |
| Sentinel node biopsy | No of patients (%) |
| Yes | 168 (22.5) |
| No | 579 (77.5) |
| Axillary dissection | No of patients (%) |
| Yes | 666 (89.2) |
| No | 81 (10.8) |
| Adjuvant chemotherapy planned | No of patients (%) |
| Yes | 257 (34.4) |
| No | 490 (65.6) |
| Endocrine therapy planned | No of patients (%) |
| Yes | 398 (53.3) |
| No | 349 (46.7) |
| Anti-HER2 therapy planned | No of patients (%) |
| Yes | 20 (2.7) |
| No | 727 (97.3) |
| Radiotherapy planned | No of patients (%) |
| Yes | 575 (77.0) |
| No | 172 (23.0) |
| Recurrence | No of patients (%) |
| Any recurrence | 369 (49.4) |
| Local recurrence | 132 (17.7) |
| Regional recurrence | 41 (5.5) |
| Distant recurrence | 228 (30.5) |
Completeness of data, agreement, correlation, and kappa values for variables concerning diagnostics, tumor characteristics and treatment are shown in Table 2. The numbers and proportions of concordant and discrepant cases for each variable are presented in Supplementary Tables S2-9.
Table 2.
Completeness of data, agreement and correlation for re-abstracted variables concerning diagnostics, surgery, tumor characteristics and treatment from the BCQR
| Complete records* in registry, number (%) | Complete records* in medical records, number (%) | Complete records* in both registry and medical records, number (%) |
Exact agreement between registry and medical records, number (%) (95% CI) |
Correlation or Cohen’s kappa** (95% CI) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Laterality | 731 (97.9%) | 718 (96.1%) | 703 (94.1%) |
694 (98.7%) (97.6–99.3%) |
0.97 (C) (0.96–0.99) |
| Type of breast surgery | 735 (98.4%) | 746 (99.9%) | 734 (98.3%) |
703 (95.8%) (94.1–97.0%) |
0.91 (C) (0.88–0.94) |
| Number of investigated lymph nodes | 708 (94.8%) | 741 (99.2%) | 706 (94.5%) |
641 (90.8%) (88.4–92.8%) |
0.96 (P) (0.95–0.96) |
| Number of metastatic lymph nodes | 705 (94.4%) | 707 (94.6%) | 699 (93.6%) |
675 (96.6%) (94.9–97.7%) |
0.98 (P) (0.97–0.98) |
| Tumor size (mm) | 742 (99.3%) | 736 (98.5%) | 733 (98.1%) |
659 (89.9%) (87.4–91.9%) |
0.90 (P) (0.89–0.92) |
| Chemotherapy | 747 (100%) | 741 (99.2%) | 741 (99.2%) |
688 (92.8%) (90.8–95.0%) |
0.84 (C) (0.80–0.88) |
| Endocrine therapy | 747 (100%) | 740 (99.1%) | 740 (99.1%) |
671 (90.7%) (88.4–92.6%) |
0.81 (C) (0.77–0.85) |
| Tamoxifen | 747 (100%) | 737 (98.7%) | 737 (98.7%) |
647 (87.8%) (85.0–90.0%) |
0.76 (C) (0.71–0.80) |
| Aromatase inhibitor | 747 (100%) | 736 (98.5%) | 736 (98.5%) |
638 (86.7%) (84.0–89.0%) |
0.50 (C) (0.41–0.58) |
| Anti-HER2 therapy | 747 (100%) | 738 (98.8%) | 738 (98.8%) |
727 (98.5%) (97.0–99.0%) |
0.71 (C) (0.55–0.87) |
| Radiotherapy | 747 (100%) | 741 (99.2%) | 741 (99.2%) |
692 (93.4%) (91.0–95.0%) |
0.81 (C) (0.76–0.86) |
*Includes all cases with valid values for the given variable, i.e. excluding unknown and missing values
**Pearson correlation coefficient (P) for numeric variables, Cohen’s kappa (C) for categorical variables
Diagnostics and surgery
Date of diagnosis showed an exact agreement of 16.3% (95% CI: 13.7 to 19.2%) between registry and medical records. Allowing for a time difference of ± 30 days, the agreement was 76.6% (95% CI: 73.4 to 79.6%). Agreement was high for laterality of primary tumor, type of surgery and number of investigated lymph nodes, with corresponding high kappa values and correlation coefficients. In the analysis of laterality, patients with bilateral synchronous breast cancer (n = 11) were excluded as the registry had no variable for bilaterality for the main part of the time period under study.
Tumor characteristics
Agreement was high for tumor size and number of metastatic lymph nodes, with corresponding high correlation coefficients.
Adjuvant treatment
The sensitivity, specificity, exact agreement, and Cohen’s kappa value for each treatment variable in the registry are presented in Table 3. Exact agreement was high, ranging from 90.7 to 98.5%, and Cohen’s kappa values from 0.71 to 0.84.
Table 3.
Sensitivity, specificity, exact agreement, and Cohen’s kappa for oncological treatment variables in the registry
| Sensitivity (95% CI) |
Specificity (95% CI) |
Exact agreement (95% CI) |
Kappa (95% CI) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chemotherapy |
88.6% (84.2–91.9%) |
95.2% (92.9–96.8%) |
92.8% (90.8–95.0%) |
0.84 (0.80–0.88) |
|
Endocrine therapy |
88.1% (84.7–90.9%) |
94.2% (91.0–97.0%) |
90.7% (88.4–92.6%) |
0.81 (0.77–0.85) |
|
Anti-HER2 therapy |
73.7% (49.0–91.0%) |
99.2% (98.2–99.6%) |
98.5% (97.4–99.2%) |
0.71 (0.55–0.87) |
| Radiotherapy |
94.7% (92.6–96.2%) |
88.5% (82.0–92.6%) |
93.4% (91.4–95.0%) |
0.81 (0.76–0.86) |
Breast cancer recurrence
Sensitivity, specificity, exact agreement, and kappa values for each recurrence category are shown in Table 4. The concordance and discrepancy between registry and medical records for each recurrence category are presented in Supplementary Tables S10-13.
Table 4.
Sensitivity, specificity, exact agreement, and Cohen’s kappa for recurrence variables in the registry
| Sensitivity (95% CI) |
Specificity (95% CI) |
Exact agreement (95% CI) |
Kappa (95% CI) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any recurrence |
90.3% (86.9–92.9%) |
91.2% (87.9–93.7%) |
90.8% (88.5–92.6%) |
0.82 (0.77–0.86) |
| Local recurrence |
80.0% (72.3–86.0%) |
95.5% (94.0–96.8%) |
92.8% (90.7–95.0%) |
0.75 (0.69–0.81) |
| Regional recurrence |
46.9% (33.0–62.0%) |
97.4% (96.0–98.0%) |
94.1% (92.2–95.6%) |
0.48 (0.35–0.61) |
| Distant recurrence |
74.9% (69.0–80.0%) |
96.6% (94.5–97.9%) |
88.4% (85.9–90.5%) |
0.74 (0.69–0.79) |
The overall agreement between registry and medical records was high for each localization of recurrence, ranging from 88.4 to 94.1%. Sensitivity was high (90.3%) when local, regional and distant recurrences were combined (any recurrence). Sensitivity was low for regional recurrence (46.9%), but considerably higher for local and distant recurrence (80.0% and 74.9%, respectively). Specificity was high for all recurrence categories, ranging between 91.2% and 97.4%. When data were split into three different time periods determined by year of first recurrence, sensitivity did not differ significantly between the time periods (Supplementary table S14).
The agreement for date of recurrence between registry and medical records is presented in Table 5. Exact agreement on date of recurrence was low (17–28%), but increased to 87–93% when allowing a time interval of ± 90 days.
Table 5.
Agreement in timing of recurrence events between registry and medical records
| Exact agreement (95% CI) |
Agreement ± 30 days (95% CI) |
Agreement ± 90 days (95% CI) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Date of first recurrence of any type |
24.4% (20.0–29.4%) |
67.0% (61.6–71.9%) |
87.2% (83.0–90.5%) |
| Date of first local recurrence |
27.9% (19.8–37.7%) |
71.2% (61.3–79.4%) |
93.3% (86.1–97.0%) |
| Date of first regional recurrence |
17.4% (5.7–39.5%) |
56.5% (34.9–76.1%) |
91.3% (70.5–98.5%) |
| Date of first distant recurrence |
25.5% (19.9–32.0%) |
68.9% (62.1–74.9%) |
87.3% (81.8–91.3%) |
The comparability between time to first recurrence according to registry and medical records is illustrated in Fig. 2. The mean difference was − 30.1 days and the upper and lower 95% limits of agreement were 781.3 days and − 841.5 days, respectively. Disagreements in date of diagnosis and date of recurrence both contribute to differences in time to recurrence.
Fig. 2.
Bland-Altman plot of time to first recurrence
The solid line illustrates the mean, and the dashed lines show the upper and lower limits of agreement. Events with a negative difference indicate that the date of event according to the registry was later than in medical records.
Discussion
This validation study indicates that the quality of recurrence data in the regional BCQR of Central Sweden is lower than that of tumor characteristics and treatment. Although the sensitivity of the different recurrence variables in the BCQR was low to moderate, these figures may over-estimate the precision of the registry since it is difficult to ascertain whether the first registry-reported recurrence event actually corresponds to the first recurrence documented in medical records. Combining all types of recurrence to the variable any recurrence increased sensitivity so that 90% of patients with recurrence of any type were correctly identified by the registry, and 91% of recurrence-free patients were categorized correctly. The higher precision of the composite recurrence variable indicates that there may be difficulties in the classification of recurrences.
Comparable studies with a focus on the validity of recurrence data in cancer registries are few, but have reported similar shortcomings. The Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG) registry is a clinical database with high population coverage and general completeness [26], for which follow-up data has been validated in different settings [16–18, 27]. One study showed that the completeness of recurrence reporting was 93% for patients included in trials, but only 64% when all patients reported to the DBCG registry were included [16]. A validation performed in another Danish cohort [18] showed that 68% of recurrences were registered. The agreement in date of recurrence was 69% and 92% when allowing for time intervals of 1 and 4 months, respectively. In a study of women with non-invasive breast cancer based on the BCQR of Central Sweden, the proportion of reported local recurrences was 65% [25]. A recent validation of a Swedish single-institution quality registry of oral cancer showed that while 77% of recurrences were reported, 13.6% of registered recurrences were misclassified [28]. Follow-up data in the Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry seemed to have a higher completeness, with 97.6% of local recurrences and 94.4% of distant recurrences registered [29]. In a more recent assessment of recurrence registration in the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry, completeness differed between regions and tended to be higher after 5 years of follow-up than earlier [30].
In the present study, specificity was very high for all types of recurrence in the registry, with a slightly lower value for the composite variable any recurrence. In the Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry, the specificity was 92.3% for local recurrence and 94.8% for distant metastasis [29]. Very few false positive recurrence events were reported in the validation of recurrence data in the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry [30]. Neither of the other previously mentioned validation studies report any false positive recurrences [16, 18, 25, 28]. The finding of false positive recurrence events in the present study may have several possible explanations, such as potential discrepancies between the definitions of recurrence during the re-abstraction process and in the routines for reporting to the BCQR, and difficulties in determining the origin of distant metastases when more than one malignancy is present. Also, re-abstractors may have had access to more detailed information in the medical records than the clinician at the time of registration.
The results of the present study confirms that the BCQR has high data quality concerning primary tumor characteristics, treatment, and adjuvant therapy. Notably, there were some inconsistencies in the definitions of treatment variables between re-abstraction and registry. For example, pre-operative treatment was included in the definition of adjuvant treatment in the re-abstraction, while the registry variables included only post-operative treatment. Despite this discrepancy, the validity of primary tumor and treatment data remained high.
Several other population-based cancer quality registries have previously been validated for primary tumor and treatment variables with similar results. In a previous validation of the Swedish National BCQR [21], validity was high for recorded information on diagnostics, tumor characteristics, surgery, and most adjuvant treatment variables. Exact agreement was approximately 95% for radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and endocrine treatment, with kappa values between 0.82 and 0.89. Another Swedish study validated adjuvant treatment variables in the national BCQR within a cohort of younger breast cancer patients included in a trial [22] and reported comparable exact agreement and kappa values. Thus, the results of both previous validations of the BCQR are similar to the results presented in this study.
Validation studies of the Danish Breast Cancer Group registry also found high data quality on tumor characteristics and adjuvant treatment [16–18]. A validation of the Swedish National Prostate Cancer Register [19] reported high agreement for tumor characteristics and most primary treatment variables. A study validating the Swedish Quality Register of Gynecologic Cancer [20] reported a moderate to high agreement for tumor characteristics and treatment variables. An evaluation of data quality in the National Swedish Kidney Cancer Register [31] found that validity was generally high with agreements above 90% for the majority of variables and few missing values. Thus, the present study shows that the data quality for tumor characteristics and treatment in the regional BCQR is in agreement with previous validation studies in both Sweden and Denmark.
Strengths of our study include the large sample from a population-based cancer quality registry, and a thorough and systematic validation process based in re-abstraction, which is considered the most objective method of evaluating the validity of cancer registries [8, 9]. There are, however, some limitations that need to be mentioned. Although medical records are regarded as the reference, information may still be missing, invalid or open to different interpretations [8]. Another potential weakness is that the study did not include an assessment of inter-rater reliability between the two re-abstractors. In addition, the definitions of some variables differed slightly between re-abstraction and the routines for reporting to the registry. Finally, some of the registry’s variable definitions have changed during the period under study, which may have affected comparability.
Accurate information on the occurrence of recurrence including details on localization and time is important for assessment and follow-up of a country’s breast cancer care. Considering the high overall survival rate in women with breast cancer, recurrence-free survival represents an important proxy for long-term prognosis. It also reflects the burden of disease, since even a successfully treated local recurrence is associated with distress for a majority of women, and health care costs. If recurrence data are unavailable or incomplete, analysis of long-term efficacy is restricted to relative or overall survival.
Conclusions
In conclusion, while the quality of data in the regional Breast Cancer Quality Registry of Central Sweden is generally high, data accuracy on recurrences is lower. When all recurrence categories are combined into a composite variable, the registry’s sensitivity is adequate, but there is evidence of underreporting for each of the separate recurrence categories (local, regional, and distant recurrence). Efforts should be made to improve the accuracy of recurrence data in registries considering the importance of recurrence-related outcomes in clinical practice. In addition, the findings highlight the importance of performing data validation as an integral part of the administration of all quality registries to ensure the reliability of assessment of quality of care and results from research studies.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary Material 1: Table S1. Variables included in the validation
Supplementary Material 2: Tables S2-9. Agreement between registry and medical records for variables concerning diagnostics and surgery, primary tumor and treatment
Supplementary Material 3: Tables S10-13. Agreement between registry and medical records for variables concerning follow-up
Supplementary Material 4: Table S14. Sensitivity (95% CI) of registry-reported recurrence depending on year of first recurrence
Acknowledgements
We thank Christina Danewid for assistance with re-abstraction of data.
Abbreviations
- BCQR
Breast Cancer Quality Registry
- RCC
Regional Cancer Centers
- DBCG
Danish Breast Cancer Group
- ER
Estrogen receptor
- PR
Progesterone receptor
- HER2
Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2
Author contributions
S.P. author, conception and design, data acquisition and analysis, interpretation of data; C.B. author, conception and design, data interpretation; M.H. data management and analysis; H.L. author, conception and design; M.L. author, conception and design, interpretation of data; J.A. author, conception and design, interpretation of data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Örebro University. This study was supported by the Regional Cancer Center Central Sweden and ALF funding Region Örebro County. The funding sources had no role in the study design; the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; the writing of the article; or the decision to submit the article for publication.
Open access funding provided by Örebro University.
Data availability
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to sensitive health information included in the dataset, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board at Uppsala University (reference number 2015/487). The need for individual informed consent in order to access medical records was waived by the Regional Ethical Review Board. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Parkin DM. The role of cancer registries in cancer control. Int J Clin Oncol. 2008;13:102–11. doi: 10.1007/s10147-008-0762-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Armstrong BK. The role of the cancer registry in cancer control. Cancer Causes Control. 1992;3:569–79. doi: 10.1007/BF00052754. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Polissar L, Feigl P, Lane WW, Glaefke G, Dahlberg S. Accuracy of basic cancer patient data: results from an extensive recoding survey. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1984;72:1007–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Liu WL, Kasl S, Flannery JT, Lindo A, Dubrow R. The accuracy of prostate cancer staging in a population-based tumor registry and its impact on the black-white stage difference (Connecticut, United States) Cancer Causes Control. 1995;6:425–30. doi: 10.1007/BF00052182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Izquierdo JN, Schoenbach VJ. The potential and limitations of data from population-based state cancer registries. Am J Public Health. 2000;90:695–8. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.90.5.695. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Seddon DJ, Williams EM. Data quality in population-based cancer registration: an assessment of the Merseyside and Cheshire Cancer Registry. Br J Cancer. 1997;76:667–74. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1997.443. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Storm HH. Cancer registries in epidemiologic research. Cancer Causes Control. 1996;7:299–301. doi: 10.1007/BF00052933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Brewster D, Crichton J, Muir C. How accurate are Scottish cancer registration data? Br J Cancer. 1994;70:954–9. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1994.428. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Bray F, Parkin DM. Evaluation of data quality in the cancer registry: principles and methods. Part I: comparability, validity and timeliness. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:747–55. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.11.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Parkin DM, Bray F. Evaluation of data quality in the cancer registry: principles and methods part II. Completeness. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:756–64. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.11.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Darby SC, Ewertz M, McGale P, Bennet AM, Blom-Goldman U, Bronnum D, et al. Risk of ischemic heart disease in women after radiotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:987–98. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1209825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Adami HO, Malker B, Holmberg L, Persson I, Stone B. The relation between survival and age at diagnosis in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1986;315:559–63. doi: 10.1056/nejm198608283150906. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Travis LB, Curtis RE, Glimelius B, Holowaty E, Van Leeuwen FE, Lynch CF, et al. Second cancers among long-term survivors of non-hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:1932–7. doi: 10.1093/jnci/85.23.1932. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Travis LB, Curtis RE, Storm H, Hall P, Holowaty E, Van Leeuwen FE, et al. Risk of second malignant neoplasms among long-term survivors of testicular cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89:1429–39. doi: 10.1093/jnci/89.19.1429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Travis LB, Fossa SD, Schonfeld SJ, McMaster ML, Lynch CF, Storm H, et al. Second cancers among 40,576 testicular cancer patients: focus on long-term survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1354–65. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dji278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Jensen AR, Storm HH, Moller S, Overgaard J. Validity and representativity in the Danish breast Cancer Cooperative Group–a study on protocol allocation and data validity from one county to a multi-centre database. Acta Oncol. 2003;42:179–85. doi: 10.1080/02841860310000737. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Moller S, Jensen MB, Ejlertsen B, Bjerre KD, Larsen M, Hansen HB, et al. The clinical database and the treatment guidelines of the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG); its 30-years experience and future promise. Acta Oncol. 2008;47:506–24. doi: 10.1080/02841860802059259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Cronin-Fenton DP, Kjaersgaard A, Ahern TP, Mele M, Ewertz M, Hamilton-Dutoit S, et al. Validity of Danish Breast Cancer Group (DBCG) registry data used in the predictors of breast cancer recurrence (ProBeCaRe) premenopausal breast cancer cohort study. Acta Oncol. 2017;56:1155–60. doi: 10.1080/0284186x.2017.1327720. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Tomic K, Sandin F, Wigertz A, Robinson D, Lambe M, Stattin P. Evaluation of data quality in the national prostate Cancer Register of Sweden. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:101–11. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.10.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Rosenberg P, Kjolhede P, Staf C, Bjurberg M, Borgfeldt C, Dahm-Kahler P, et al. Data quality in the Swedish Quality Register of Gynecologic Cancer - a Swedish Gynecologic Cancer Group (SweGCG) study. Acta Oncol. 2018;57:346–53. doi: 10.1080/0284186x.2017.1366048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Lofgren L, Eloranta S, Krawiec K, Asterkvist A, Lonnqvist C, Sandelin K, et al. Validation of data quality in the Swedish National Register for breast Cancer. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:495. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-6846-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Wennman-Larsen A, Nilsson MI, Saboonchi F, Olsson M, Alexanderson K, Fornander T, et al. Can breast cancer register data on recommended adjuvant treatment be used as a proxy for actually given treatment? Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2016;22:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2016.02.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Pezzi CM. Big data and clinical research in oncology: the good, the bad, the challenges, and the opportunities. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:1506–7. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3519-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.In H, Bilimoria KY, Stewart AK, Wroblewski KE, Posner MC, Talamonti MS, et al. Cancer recurrence: an important but missing variable in national cancer registries. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:1520–9. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3516-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Wadsten C, Heyman H, Holmqvist M, Ahlgren J, Lambe M, Sund M, et al. A validation of DCIS registration in a population-based breast cancer quality register and a study of treatment and prognosis for DCIS during 20 years. Acta Oncol. 2016;55:1338–43. doi: 10.1080/0284186x.2016.1211317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Christiansen P, Ejlertsen B, Jensen MB, Mouridsen H. Danish breast Cancer Cooperative Group. Clin Epidemiol. 2016;8:445–9. doi: 10.2147/clep.S99457. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Hansen PS, Andersen E, Andersen KW, Mouridsen HT. Quality control of end results in a Danish adjuvant breast cancer multi-center study. Acta Oncol. 1997;36:711–4. doi: 10.3109/02841869709001342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Lundin E, Bergqvist M, Ahlgren J, Reizenstein J, Lennernas BO. Validation of a Clinical Cancer Register at the Head and Neck Oncology Center in Orebro. Anticancer Res. 2019;39:285–9. doi: 10.21873/anticanres.13109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Jorgren F, Johansson R, Damber L, Lindmark G. Validity of the Swedish rectal Cancer Registry for patients treated with major abdominal surgery between 1995 and 1997. Acta Oncol. 2013;52:1707–14. doi: 10.3109/0284186x.2013.805886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Osterman E, Hammarstrom K, Imam I, Osterlund E, Sjoblom T, Glimelius B. Completeness and accuracy of the registration of recurrences in the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry (SCRCR) and an update of recurrence risk in colon cancer. Acta Oncol. 2021;60:842–9. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2021.1896033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Landberg A, Bruce D, Lindblad P, Ljungberg B, Lundstam S, Thorstenson A, et al. Validation of data quality in the national Swedish kidney Cancer Register. Scand J Urol. 2021;55:142–8. doi: 10.1080/21681805.2021.1885485. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary Material 1: Table S1. Variables included in the validation
Supplementary Material 2: Tables S2-9. Agreement between registry and medical records for variables concerning diagnostics and surgery, primary tumor and treatment
Supplementary Material 3: Tables S10-13. Agreement between registry and medical records for variables concerning follow-up
Supplementary Material 4: Table S14. Sensitivity (95% CI) of registry-reported recurrence depending on year of first recurrence
Data Availability Statement
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to sensitive health information included in the dataset, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.