Comparability of stage data in cancer registries in six countries: Lessons from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership
Open Access
- 24 May 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in International Journal of Cancer
- Vol. 132 (3), 676-685
- https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.27651
Abstract
The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership is investigating cancer survival differences between six high‐income nations using population‐based cancer registry data. Differences in overall survival are often explained by differences in the stage at diagnosis and stage‐specific survival. Comparing stage at diagnosis using cancer registry data is challenging because of different regional practices in defining stage, despite the existence of international staging classifications such as TNM. This paper describes how stage data may be reconciled for international analysis. Population‐based cancer registry data were collected for 2.4 million adults diagnosed with colorectal, lung, breast (women) or ovarian cancer during 1995–2007 in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The stage data received were coded to a variety of international systems, including the TNM classification, Dukes' for colorectal cancer, FIGO for ovarian cancer, and to national “localised, regional, distant” categorisations. To optimise comparability for analysis, a rigorous and repeatable process was defined to produce a final stage variable for each patient. An algorithm was also defined to map TNM, Dukes' and FIGO to a “localised, regional, distant” categorisation. We recommend how stage data should be recorded and processed to optimise comparability in population‐based international comparisons of stage‐specific cancer outcomes. The process we describe to produce comparable stage data forms a benchmark for future research. The algorithm to convert between TNM and a “localised, regional, distant” categorisation should be valuable for international studies, until global consensus is achieved to adhere to a single staging system like TNM.This publication has 21 references indexed in Scilit:
- 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
- TNM seventh edition: What's new, what's changedCancer, 2010
- Large differences in patterns of breast cancer survival between Australia and England: A comparative study using cancer registry dataInternational Journal of Cancer, 2009
- Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study (CONCORD)The Lancet Oncology, 2008
- Cardiac metastasesJournal of Clinical Pathology, 2007
- Trends in survival and excess risk of death after diagnosis of cancerin 1980–1996 in New South Wales, AustraliaInternational Journal of Cancer, 2006
- The “y” symbol: An important classification tool for neoadjuvant cancer treatmentCancer, 2006
- Re: Colon Cancer Survival Rates With the New American Joint Committee on Cancer Sixth Edition StagingJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2005
- On the use and abuse of X in the TNM classificationCancer, 2005
- Cardiac metastasis of lung cancer. A study of metastatic pathways and clinical manifestationsCancer, 1992