Colorectal cancer ascertainment through cancer registries, hospital episode statistics, and self-reporting compared to confirmation by clinician: A cohort study nested within the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). (February 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Thomas, Darren S.; Gentry-Maharaj, Aleksandra; Ryan, Andy; Fourkala, Evangelia-Ourania; Apostolidou, Sophia; Burnell, Matthew; Alderton, Wendy; Barnes, Julie; Timms, John F.; Menon, Usha
• Is Part Of: Cancer epidemiology. Volume 58(2019:Feb.)
• Page Start: 167
• Page End: 174
• Publication Date: 2019-02
• Subjects: Colorectal neoplasms -- Electronic health records -- Registries -- Death certificates -- Hospital episode statistics -- Self report; Cancer -- Epidemiology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Prevention -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Carcinogenesis -- Periodicals; 616.994005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2018.11.011
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1877-7821

Abstract

Highlights: Ninety-two & 99% of colorectal cancers were registered after one & six years. Hospital Episode Statistics tend to capture events unregistered after one year. Self-reporting by women aged ≥50 was less reliable and had low respondents. Electronic health records in the UK are suitable for studying colorectal cancer in women. Abstract: Background: Electronic health records are frequently used for cancer epidemiology. We report on their quality for ascertaining colorectal cancer (CRC) in UK women. Methods: Population-based, retrospective cohort study nested within the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Postmenopausal women aged 50–74 who were diagnosed with CRC during 2001–11 following randomisation to the UKCTOCS were identified and their diagnosis confirmed with their treating clinician. The sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of cancer and death registries, hospital episode statistics, and self-reporting were calculated by pairwise comparisons to the treating clinician's confirmation, while specificity and negative predictive value were estimated relative to expected cases. Results: Notification of CRC events were received for 1, 085 women as of 24 May 2011. Responses were received from 61% (660/1, 085) of clinicians contacted. Nineteen women were excluded (18 no diagnosis date, one diagnosed after cut-off). Of the 641 eligible, 514 had CRC, 24 had a benign polyp, and 103 had neither diagnosis. The sensitivity of cancer registrations at one- and six-years post-diagnosis was 92 (95% CI 90–94) and 99% (97–100), respectively, with a PPV of 95% (95% CI 92/93–97). The sensitivity & PPV of cancer registrations (at one-year post-diagnosis) & hospital episode statistics combined were 98 (96–99) and 92% (89–94), respectively. Conclusions: Cancer and death registrations in the UK are a reliable resource for CRC ascertainment in women. Hospital episode statistics can supplement delays in cancer registration. Self-reporting seems less reliable.