Dataset Information

Estimating cancer treatment intensity from SEER cancer registry data: methods and implications for population-based registry studies of pediatric cancers.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The Intensity of Treatment Rating (ITR) Scale condenses treatment and clinical characteristics into a single measure to study treatment effects on downstream health outcomes across cancer types. This rating was originally developed for clinicians to determine from medical charts. However, large studies are often unable to access medical charts for all study participants. We developed and tested a method of estimating treatment intensity (TI) using cancer registry and patient self-reported data.

Methods

We estimated two versions of TI for a cohort of pediatric cancer survivors-one utilized information solely available from cancer registry variables (TI_R) and the other included registry and self-reported information (TI_S) from survey participants. In a subset of cases (n = 135) for whom the gold standard TI (TI_C) was known, both TI_R and TI_S were compared to TI_C by calculating percent agreement and weighted Cohen's kappa, overall and within cancer subtypes.

Results

In comparison to TI_C, 71% of TI scores from both methods were in agreement (k = 0.61 TI_R/0.54 TI_S). Among subgroups, agreement ranged from lowest (46% TI_R/39% TI_S) for non-defined tumors (e.g., "Tumor-other"), to highest (94% TI_R/94% TI_S) for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

Conclusions

We developed a methodology to estimate TI for pediatric cancer research when medical chart review is not possible. High reliability was observed for ALL, the most common pediatric cancer. Additional validation is needed among a larger sample of other cancer subgroups. The ability to estimate TI from cancer registry data would assist with monitoring effects of treatment during survivorship in registry-based epidemiological studies.

SUBMITTER: Tobin JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7537342 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious research has identified an association between fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution and lung cancer. Most of the evidence for this association, however, is based on research using lung cancer mortality, not incidence. Research that examines potential associations between PM2.5 and incidence of non-lung cancers is limited.ObjectivesThe primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between the incidence of cancer and exposure to PM2.5 using >8.5 million cases of cancer incidences from U.S. registries. Secondary objectives include evaluating the sensitivity of the associations to model selection, spatial control, and latency period as well as estimating the exposure-response relationship for several cancer types.MethodsSurveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program data were used to calculate incidence rates for various cancer types in 607 U.S. counties. County-level PM2.5 concentrations were estimated using integrated empirical geographic regression models. Flexible semi-nonparametric regression models were used to estimate associations between PM2.5 and cancer incidence for selected cancers while controlling for important county-level covariates. Primary time-independent models using average incidence rates from 1992-2016 and average PM2.5 from 1988-2015 were estimated. In addition, time-varying models using annual incidence rates from 2002-2011 and lagged moving averages of annual estimates for PM2.5 were also estimated.ResultsThe incidences of all cancer and lung cancer were consistently associated with PM2.5. The incident rate ratios (IRRs), per 10-μg/m3 increase in PM2.5, for all and lung cancer were 1.09 (95% CI: 1.03, 1.14) and 1.19 (95% CI: 1.09, 1.30), respectively. Less robust associations were observed with oral, rectal, liver, skin, breast, and kidney cancers.DiscussionExposure to PM2.5 air pollution contributes to lung cancer incidence and is potentially associated with non-lung cancer incidence. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP7246.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Twenty-eight states have passed breast density notification laws, which require physicians to inform women of a finding of dense breasts on mammography. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate changes in breast cancer stage at diagnosis after enactment of breast density notification legislation. DESIGN:Using a difference-in-differences analysis, we examined changes in stage at diagnosis among women with breast cancer in Connecticut, the first state to enact legislation, compared to changes among women in control states. We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) registry, 2005-2013. PARTICIPANTS:Women ages 40-74 with breast cancer. INTERVENTION:Breast density notification legislation, enacted in Connecticut in October of 2009. MAIN MEASURE:Breast cancer stage at diagnosis. KEY RESULTS:Our study included 466,930 women, 25,592 of whom lived in Connecticut. Legislation was associated with a 1.38-percentage-point (95 % CI 0.12 to 2.63) increase in the proportion of women in Connecticut versus control states who had localized invasive cancer at the time of diagnosis, and a 1.12-percentage-point (95 % CI -2.21 to -0.08) decline in the proportion of women with ductal carcinoma in situ at diagnosis. Breast density notification legislation was not associated with a change in the proportion of women in Connecticut versus control states with regional-stage (-0.09 percentage points, 95 % CI -1.01 to 1.02) or metastatic disease (-0.24, 95 % CI -0.75 to 0.28). County-level analyses and analyses limited to women younger than 50 found no statistically significant associations. LIMITATIONS:Single intervention state, limited follow-up, potential confounding from unobserved trends. CONCLUSIONS:Breast density notification legislation in Connecticut was associated with a small increase in the proportion of women diagnosed with localized invasive breast cancer in individual-level but not county-level analyses. Whether this finding reflects potentially beneficial early detection or potentially harmful overdiagnosis is not known. Legislation was not associated with changes in regional or metastatic disease.