Search

Background: Accurate information about treatment is needed to evaluate cervical cancer prevention efforts. We studied completeness and validity of reporting cervical treatments in the Cancer Registry of Norway (CRN)., Material and Methods: We identified 47,423 (92%) high-grade cervical dysplasia patients with and 3983 (8%) without recorded treatment in the CRN in 1998-2013. We linked the latter group to the nationwide registry of hospital discharges in 1998-2015. Of patients still without treatment records, we randomly selected 375 for review of their medical history. Factors predicting incomplete treatment records were assessed by multiple imputation and logistic regression., Results: Registry linkage revealed that 10% (401/3983) of patients received treatment, usually conization, within one year of their initial high-grade dysplasia diagnosis. Of those, 11% (n = 44) were missing due to unreporting and 89% (n = 357) due to misclassification at the CRN. Of all cases in medical review, patients under active surveillance contributed almost 60% (223/375). Other reasons of being without recorded treatment were uncertain dysplasia diagnosis, invasive cancer or death. Coding error occurred in 19% (73/375) of randomly selected cases. CRN undercounted receipt of treatment by 38% (n = 1526) among patients without recorded treatment which translates into 97% overall completeness of treatment data. Incomplete treatment records were particularly associated with public laboratories, patients aged 40-54 years, and the latest study years., Conclusions: CRN holds accurate information on cervical treatments. Completeness and particularly validity can be further improved through the establishment of new internal routines and regular linkage to hospital discharges.

Background Registration of haematological malignancies presents specific challenges, and a wide range of data is required to ensure case ascertainment and proper classification of these diseases. We studied the data quality of myeloproliferative and myelodysplastic neoplasms in the Finnish Cancer Registry (FCR), comparing information with hospital discharges. Material and methods Hospital discharges (HILMO) in 2007-2013 including diagnostic codes of myeloproliferative and myelodysplastic neoplasms were extracted. Patients were individually linked to the FCR database for all haematological malignancies registered in 1953-2013. Coverage and accuracy of the FCR and agreement between registers was estimated. Results In total 5289 individuals were retrieved from two registers. Of these, 1406 were common, 1080 only found in the FCR and 2803 only in the HILMO. Coverage of myeloproliferative and myelodysplastic neoplasms in the FCR was 47.0% (95% CI 45.7-48.4%). Almost one quarter of the registrations in the FCR was based on a death certificate only. The accuracy of diagnosis was 51.4% (95% CI 49.4-53.3%), but it varied substantially by disease category. Kappa statistic for agreement between registers was excellent (0.83, 95% CI 0.80-0.85) for common cases. 7.6% of cases in the HILMO was registered as leukaemias in the FCR. Conclusions More than half of the patients found in the HILMO were entirely missing from the FCR. However, some of the diagnoses in HILMO may be preliminary and this represents the maximal number of missing cases. Cancer registers benefit from supplementary data sources, such as hospital discharges, to increase coverage and accuracy of register data on haematological malignancies.