Five ways to improve international comparisons of cancer survival: lessons learned from ICBP SURVMARK-2
Open Access
- 20 January 2022
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in British Journal of Cancer
- Vol. 126 (8), 1224-1228
- https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-022-01701-0
Abstract
Background Comparisons of population-based cancer survival between countries are important to benchmark the overall effectiveness of cancer management. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) Survmark-2 study aims to compare survival in seven high-income countries across eight cancer sites and explore reasons for the observed differences. A critical aspect in ensuring comparability in the reported survival estimates are similarities in practice across cancer registries. While ICBP Survmark-2 has shown these differences are unlikely to explain the observed differences in cancer-specific survival between countries, it is important to keep in mind potential biases linked to registry practice and understand their likely impact. Methods Based on experiences gained within ICBP Survmark-2, we have developed a set of recommendations that seek to optimally harmonise cancer registry datasets to improve future benchmarking exercises. Results Our recommendations stem from considering the impact on cancer survival estimates in five key areas: (1) the completeness of the registry and the availability of registration sources; (2) the inclusion of death certification as a source of identifying cases; (3) the specification of the date of incidence; (4) the approach to handling multiple primary tumours and (5) the quality of linkage of cases to the deaths register. Conclusion These recommendations seek to improve comparability whilst maintaining the opportunity to understand and act upon international variations in outcomes among cancer patients.Keywords
This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- Using the National Death Index to Identify Duplicate Cancer Incident Cases in Florida and New York, 1996–2005Preventing Chronic Disease, 2014
- Cancer survival in Europe 1999–2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE-5—a population-based studyThe Lancet Oncology, 2014
- Evidence against the proposition that "UK cancer survival statistics are misleading": simulation study with National Cancer Registry dataBMJ, 2011
- Completeness of case ascertainment and survival time error in English cancer registries: impact on 1-year survival estimatesBritish Journal of Cancer, 2011
- Cancer survival in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the UK, 1995–2007 (the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership): an analysis of population-based cancer registry dataThe Lancet, 2011
- Evaluation of data quality in the cancer registry: Principles and methods Part II. CompletenessEuropean Journal of Cancer, 2009
- Evaluation of data quality in the cancer registry: Principles and methods. Part I: Comparability, validity and timelinessEuropean Journal of Cancer, 2009
- Interpreting international comparisons of cancer survival: The effects of incomplete registration and the presence of death certificate only cases on survival estimatesEuropean Journal of Cancer, 2007
- International rules for multiple primary cancers (ICD-0 third edition)European Journal of Cancer Prevention, 2005
- The Capture-Recapture Method for Estimation of Cancer Registry Completeness: A Useful Tool?International Journal of Epidemiology, 1994