Abstract
The Thames Cancer Registry (TCR) has registered a high proportion of tumours from death certificate information only (DCO) registrations. This paper describes the results of a study set up to establish whether this proportion could be reduced by linking cancer registrations with routine hospital data from the Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) data set using computerized matching. A total of 67 752 registrations were identified from the TCR. Matches were found in the HES data set for 66%. The proportion of cases retrieved for each tumour site was: 72% for colorectal cancer; 62% for cancer of the lung, trachea or bronchus; and 65% for female breast cancer. For all three tumour sites the proportion of matches found for patients registered from hospital case notes was higher than the proportion found for patients registered as DCOs (P< 0.0001 for all three tumour sites). Among matched DCO cases, 58% had at least one procedure recorded. DCO rates might be reduced by as much as 43% (from 17% of total registrations to less than 10%) for the three most common cancers if the method of electronic matching outlined here was used. Younger age groups, prognosis of tumour site and residence in North Thames region were all positively associated with successful matching (P< 0.0001 in all three cases). Many matched DCO cases were found to have had more than one admission for cancer. Among ordinary in-patient admissions, admissions to patients ratios of 1.5, 1.4 and 1.9 were found for colorectal, lung and breast cancers respectively. Of 5190 matched DCOs a procedure was recorded for 3013 (58%). HES data offer a useful aid to follow-up of case notes on patients identified to the registry by death certificates. Doubts about the completeness and accuracy of HES data mean case notes must remain the ‘gold standard’. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaign
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (51.6 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Chow W. H., Devesa S. S. Death certificate reporting of colon and rectal cancers. JAMA. 1992 Jun 10;267(22):3028–3028. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gill L., Goldacre M., Simmons H., Bettley G., Griffith M. Computerised linking of medical records: methodological guidelines. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1993 Aug;47(4):316–319. doi: 10.1136/jech.47.4.316. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Grulich A. E., Swerdlow A. J., dos Santos Silva I., Beral V. Is the apparent rise in cancer mortality in the elderly real? Analysis of changes in certification and coding of cause of death in England and Wales, 1970-1990. Int J Cancer. 1995 Oct 9;63(2):164–168. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910630203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Percy C., Stanek E., 3rd, Gloeckler L. Accuracy of cancer death certificates and its effect on cancer mortality statistics. Am J Public Health. 1981 Mar;71(3):242–250. doi: 10.2105/ajph.71.3.242. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pollock A. M., Vickers N. The impact on colorectal cancer survival of cases registered by 'death certificate only': implications for national survival rates. Br J Cancer. 1994 Dec;70(6):1229–1231. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1994.478. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pollock A. M., Vickers N. Why are a quarter of all cancer deaths in south-east England registered by death certificate only? Factors related to death certificate only registrations in the Thames Cancer Registry between 1987 and 1989. Br J Cancer. 1995 Mar;71(3):637–641. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1995.125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]