Abstract
Objectives
To compare the completeness and agreement of prostate cancer data recorded by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS) with research-level data specifically abstracted from medical records from the Cluster randomised trial of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP) trial.
Design
Cross-sectional comparison study
Participants
We included 1,356 men from the CAP trial cohort who were linked to the NCRAS
registry.
Primary and secondary outcome measures
Completeness of prostate cancer data in NCRAS and CAP and agreement for TNM
stage (T1/T2; T3; T4/N1/M1) and Gleason grade (4-6; 7; 8-10), measured by
differences in proportions and Cohen’s Kappa statistic. Data were also stratified by year and pre- versus post-2010, when NCRAS reporting standards changed.
Results
Compared to CAP, completeness was lower in NCRAS for Gleason grade (41.2% vs 76.7%, difference 35.5 95% CI 32.1, 39.0) and TNM stage (29.9% vs 67.6%, difference 37.6 95% CI 34.1, 41.1). NCRAS completeness for Gleason grade (pre- versus post-2010 31.69% vs 64%; difference 32.31 95% CI 26.76, 37.87) and TNM stage (19.31% vs 55.50%; difference 36.19 95% CI 30.72, 41.67) improved over time. Agreement for Gleason grade was high (Cohen’s Kappa, κ=0.90 95% CI 0.88, 0.93), but lower for TNM stage (κ=0.41 95% CI 0.37, 0.51) overall. There was a trend towards improved agreement on Gleason grade, but not TNM stage, when comparing pre- and post-2010.
Conclusion
NCRAS case identification was very high, however data on prostate cancer grade was less complete than CAP, and agreement for TNM stage was modest. Although the completeness of NCRAS data has improved since 2010, the higher completeness rate in CAP demonstrate that gains could potentially be achieved in routine registry data. This study’s findings highlight a need for improved recording of stage and grade data in the source medical records.
To compare the completeness and agreement of prostate cancer data recorded by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS) with research-level data specifically abstracted from medical records from the Cluster randomised trial of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP) trial.
Design
Cross-sectional comparison study
Participants
We included 1,356 men from the CAP trial cohort who were linked to the NCRAS
registry.
Primary and secondary outcome measures
Completeness of prostate cancer data in NCRAS and CAP and agreement for TNM
stage (T1/T2; T3; T4/N1/M1) and Gleason grade (4-6; 7; 8-10), measured by
differences in proportions and Cohen’s Kappa statistic. Data were also stratified by year and pre- versus post-2010, when NCRAS reporting standards changed.
Results
Compared to CAP, completeness was lower in NCRAS for Gleason grade (41.2% vs 76.7%, difference 35.5 95% CI 32.1, 39.0) and TNM stage (29.9% vs 67.6%, difference 37.6 95% CI 34.1, 41.1). NCRAS completeness for Gleason grade (pre- versus post-2010 31.69% vs 64%; difference 32.31 95% CI 26.76, 37.87) and TNM stage (19.31% vs 55.50%; difference 36.19 95% CI 30.72, 41.67) improved over time. Agreement for Gleason grade was high (Cohen’s Kappa, κ=0.90 95% CI 0.88, 0.93), but lower for TNM stage (κ=0.41 95% CI 0.37, 0.51) overall. There was a trend towards improved agreement on Gleason grade, but not TNM stage, when comparing pre- and post-2010.
Conclusion
NCRAS case identification was very high, however data on prostate cancer grade was less complete than CAP, and agreement for TNM stage was modest. Although the completeness of NCRAS data has improved since 2010, the higher completeness rate in CAP demonstrate that gains could potentially be achieved in routine registry data. This study’s findings highlight a need for improved recording of stage and grade data in the source medical records.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | e015994 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | BMJ Open |
| Volume | 7 |
| Issue number | 11 |
| Early online date | 14 Nov 2017 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Nov 2017 |
Research Groups and Themes
- BTC (Bristol Trials Centre)
Keywords
- Cancer
- Prostate
- REGISTRY
Access to Document
- Full-text PDF (final published version)
This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via BMJ at http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/11/e015994. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.