Photo Credit: TNM
The following is a summary of “Validity and timeliness of cancer diagnosis data collected during a prospective cohort study and reported by the English and Welsh cancer registries: a retrospective, comparative analysis,” published in the October 2024 issue of Oncology by Jackson et al.
Researchers conducted a prospective study to compare the validity and timeliness of cancer diagnosis data.
They collected cancer data from 5,461 participants across 44 hospital sites during the SYMPLIFY study. Linked cancer data were obtained from Digital Health and Care Wales (DHCW), Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit (WCISU), English National Cancer Registration Dataset (NCRD), and Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset (RCRD) (April 2022 and September 2023). The primary point included evaluating the validity by assessing the proportion of completed data fields, concordance with SYMPLIFY sites, and timeliness of the data for all cancers diagnosed within 9 months.
The results showed completeness at the last data cut ranged from 84% to 100% for International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd Edition (ICD-O-3) morphology, from 43% to 100% for overall stage, and from 74% to 83% for TNM stage. Concordance between SYMPLIFY data and NCRD was 96% (95% CI 92–98) for ICD, 10th Revision (ICD-10), 60% (53–66) for ICD-O-3 morphology, 83% (78–88) for broad morphology groupings, 73% (67–78) for stage, and 51% (44–59) for TNM. Similar concordance rates were reported with WCISU, RCRD, and DHCW, with the SYMPLIFY dataset completing 12 months post-enrollment compared to 13 months for NCRD, 13 months for RCRD, and 15 months for DHCW.
They concluded that central registry data were comparable in completeness, concordance, and timeliness to on-site data, suggesting the ease of resource burden for clinical trials and enhanced cancer research.
Source: thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(24)00497-2/fulltext
