The quest for population-level cancer recurrence data; Current deficiencies and targets for improvement

Haejin In, Cassie A. Simon, Jerri Linn Phillips, Mitchell C. Posner, Clifford Y. Ko, David P. Winchester

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Cancer recurrence is a critical outcome in cancer care. However, population-level recurrence information is currently unavailable. Tumor registries provide an opportunity to generate this information, but require major reform. Our objectives were to (1) determine causes for variability in collection of recurrence, and (2) identify targets for intervention. Methods On-site interviews and observations of tumor registry follow-up procedures were conducted at Commission on Cancer (CoC) accredited hospitals. Information regarding registry resources (caseload, staffing, chart availability), follow-up methods and perceived causes for difficulty in obtaining recurrence information was obtained. Results Seven NCI/academic, 5 comprehensive community and 2 community centers agreed to participate. Hospitals were inconsistent in their investigation of cancer recurrence, resulting in underreporting of rates of recurrence. Hospital characteristics, registry staffing, staff qualifications and medical chart access influenced follow-up practices. Coding standards and definitions for recurrence were suboptimal, resulting in hospital variability of recurrence reporting. Finally, inability to identify cases lost to follow-up in collected data prevents accurate analysis of recurrence rates. Conclusion Tumor registries collect varying degrees of recurrence information and provide the underpinnings to capture population-level cancer recurrence data. Targets for intervention are listed, and provide a roadmap to obtain this critical information in cancer care.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)657-662
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Surgical Oncology
Volume111
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Recurrence
Population
Neoplasms
Registries
Cancer Care Facilities
Lost to Follow-Up
Medical Staff
Interviews

Keywords

  • cancer database
  • cancer epidemiology
  • cancer recurrence
  • cancer registrars
  • tumor registries

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Oncology

Cite this

The quest for population-level cancer recurrence data; Current deficiencies and targets for improvement. / In, Haejin; Simon, Cassie A.; Phillips, Jerri Linn; Posner, Mitchell C.; Ko, Clifford Y.; Winchester, David P.

In: Journal of Surgical Oncology, Vol. 111, No. 6, 01.05.2015, p. 657-662.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

In, Haejin ; Simon, Cassie A. ; Phillips, Jerri Linn ; Posner, Mitchell C. ; Ko, Clifford Y. ; Winchester, David P. / The quest for population-level cancer recurrence data; Current deficiencies and targets for improvement. In: Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2015 ; Vol. 111, No. 6. pp. 657-662.
@article{0271d549882b4d43848c7cd807bcf343,
title = "The quest for population-level cancer recurrence data; Current deficiencies and targets for improvement",
abstract = "Background Cancer recurrence is a critical outcome in cancer care. However, population-level recurrence information is currently unavailable. Tumor registries provide an opportunity to generate this information, but require major reform. Our objectives were to (1) determine causes for variability in collection of recurrence, and (2) identify targets for intervention. Methods On-site interviews and observations of tumor registry follow-up procedures were conducted at Commission on Cancer (CoC) accredited hospitals. Information regarding registry resources (caseload, staffing, chart availability), follow-up methods and perceived causes for difficulty in obtaining recurrence information was obtained. Results Seven NCI/academic, 5 comprehensive community and 2 community centers agreed to participate. Hospitals were inconsistent in their investigation of cancer recurrence, resulting in underreporting of rates of recurrence. Hospital characteristics, registry staffing, staff qualifications and medical chart access influenced follow-up practices. Coding standards and definitions for recurrence were suboptimal, resulting in hospital variability of recurrence reporting. Finally, inability to identify cases lost to follow-up in collected data prevents accurate analysis of recurrence rates. Conclusion Tumor registries collect varying degrees of recurrence information and provide the underpinnings to capture population-level cancer recurrence data. Targets for intervention are listed, and provide a roadmap to obtain this critical information in cancer care.",
keywords = "cancer database, cancer epidemiology, cancer recurrence, cancer registrars, tumor registries",
author = "Haejin In and Simon, {Cassie A.} and Phillips, {Jerri Linn} and Posner, {Mitchell C.} and Ko, {Clifford Y.} and Winchester, {David P.}",
year = "2015",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/jso.23883",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "111",
pages = "657--662",
journal = "Journal of Surgical Oncology",
issn = "0022-4790",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The quest for population-level cancer recurrence data; Current deficiencies and targets for improvement

AU - In, Haejin

AU - Simon, Cassie A.

AU - Phillips, Jerri Linn

AU - Posner, Mitchell C.

AU - Ko, Clifford Y.

AU - Winchester, David P.

PY - 2015/5/1

Y1 - 2015/5/1

N2 - Background Cancer recurrence is a critical outcome in cancer care. However, population-level recurrence information is currently unavailable. Tumor registries provide an opportunity to generate this information, but require major reform. Our objectives were to (1) determine causes for variability in collection of recurrence, and (2) identify targets for intervention. Methods On-site interviews and observations of tumor registry follow-up procedures were conducted at Commission on Cancer (CoC) accredited hospitals. Information regarding registry resources (caseload, staffing, chart availability), follow-up methods and perceived causes for difficulty in obtaining recurrence information was obtained. Results Seven NCI/academic, 5 comprehensive community and 2 community centers agreed to participate. Hospitals were inconsistent in their investigation of cancer recurrence, resulting in underreporting of rates of recurrence. Hospital characteristics, registry staffing, staff qualifications and medical chart access influenced follow-up practices. Coding standards and definitions for recurrence were suboptimal, resulting in hospital variability of recurrence reporting. Finally, inability to identify cases lost to follow-up in collected data prevents accurate analysis of recurrence rates. Conclusion Tumor registries collect varying degrees of recurrence information and provide the underpinnings to capture population-level cancer recurrence data. Targets for intervention are listed, and provide a roadmap to obtain this critical information in cancer care.

AB - Background Cancer recurrence is a critical outcome in cancer care. However, population-level recurrence information is currently unavailable. Tumor registries provide an opportunity to generate this information, but require major reform. Our objectives were to (1) determine causes for variability in collection of recurrence, and (2) identify targets for intervention. Methods On-site interviews and observations of tumor registry follow-up procedures were conducted at Commission on Cancer (CoC) accredited hospitals. Information regarding registry resources (caseload, staffing, chart availability), follow-up methods and perceived causes for difficulty in obtaining recurrence information was obtained. Results Seven NCI/academic, 5 comprehensive community and 2 community centers agreed to participate. Hospitals were inconsistent in their investigation of cancer recurrence, resulting in underreporting of rates of recurrence. Hospital characteristics, registry staffing, staff qualifications and medical chart access influenced follow-up practices. Coding standards and definitions for recurrence were suboptimal, resulting in hospital variability of recurrence reporting. Finally, inability to identify cases lost to follow-up in collected data prevents accurate analysis of recurrence rates. Conclusion Tumor registries collect varying degrees of recurrence information and provide the underpinnings to capture population-level cancer recurrence data. Targets for intervention are listed, and provide a roadmap to obtain this critical information in cancer care.

KW - cancer database

KW - cancer epidemiology

KW - cancer recurrence

KW - cancer registrars

KW - tumor registries

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928212447&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928212447&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jso.23883

DO - 10.1002/jso.23883

M3 - Article

VL - 111

SP - 657

EP - 662

JO - Journal of Surgical Oncology

JF - Journal of Surgical Oncology

SN - 0022-4790

IS - 6

ER -