↓ Skip to main content

Completeness and accuracy of national cancer and death registration for outcome ascertainment in trials—an ovarian cancer exemplar

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, January 2021
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Completeness and accuracy of national cancer and death registration for outcome ascertainment in trials—an ovarian cancer exemplar
Published in
Trials, January 2021
DOI 10.1186/s13063-020-04968-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jatinderpal K. Kalsi, Andy Ryan, Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj, Danielle Margolin-Crump, Naveena Singh, Matthew Burnell, Elizabeth Benjamin, Sophia Apostolidou, Mariam Habib, Susan Massingham, Chloe Karpinskyj, Robert Woolas, Martin Widschwendter, Lesley Fallowfield, Stuart Campbell, Steven Skates, Alistair McGuire, Max Parmar, Ian Jacobs, Usha Menon

Abstract

There is a trend to increasing use of routinely collected health data to ascertain outcome measures in trials. We report on the completeness and accuracy of national ovarian cancer and death registration in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Of the 202,638 participants, 202,632 were successfully linked and followed through national cancer and death registries of Northern Ireland, Wales and England. Women with registrations of any of 19 pre-defined ICD-10 codes suggestive of tubo-ovarian cancer or notification of ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancer from hospital episode statistics or trial sites were identified. Copies of hospital and primary care notes were retrieved and reviewed by an independent outcomes review committee. National registration of site and cause of death as ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancer (C56/C57/C48) obtained up to 3 months after trial censorship was compared to that assigned by outcomes review (reference standard). Outcome review was undertaken in 3110 women on whom notification was received between 2001 and 2014. Ovarian cancer was confirmed in 1324 of whom 1125 had a relevant cancer registration. Sensitivity and specificity of ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancer registration were 85.0% (1125/1324; 95% CI 83.7-86.2%) and 94.0% (1679/1786; 95% CI 93.2-94.8%), respectively. Of 2041 death registrations reviewed, 681 were confirmed to have a tubo-ovarian cancer of whom 605 had relevant death registration. Sensitivity and specificity were 88.8% (605/681; 95% CI 86.4-91.2%) and 96.7% (1482/1533, 95% CI 95.8-97.6%), respectively. When multiple electronic health record sources were considered, sensitivity for cancer site increased to 91.1% (1206/1324, 95% CI 89.4-92.5%) and for cause of death 94.0% (640/681, 95% CI 91.9-95.5%). Of 1232 with cancer registration, 8.7% (107/1232) were wrongly designated as ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancers by the registry and 4.0% (47/1172) of confirmed tubo-ovarian cancers were mis-registered. In 656 with death registrations, 7.8% (51/656) were wrongly assigned as due to ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancers while 6.2% (40/645) of confirmed tubo-ovarian cancer deaths were mis-registered. Follow-up of trial participants for tubo-ovarian cancer using national registry data will result in incomplete ascertainment, particularly of the site due in part to the latency of registration. This can be reduced by using other routinely collected data such as hospital episode statistics. Central adjudication by experts though resource intensive adds value by improving the accuracy of diagnoses. ISRCTN: ISRCTN22488978 . Registered on 6 April 2000.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Professor 2 5%
Student > Master 2 5%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 24 56%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 22 51%