Izci Hava, Tambuyzer Tim, Vandeven Jessica, Xicluna Jérôme, Wildiers Hans, Punie Kevin, Willers Nynke, Oldenburger Eva, Van Nieuwenhuysen Els, Berteloot Patrick, Smeets Ann, Nevelsteen Ines, Deblander Anne, De Schutter Harlinde, Neven Patrick, Silversmit Geert, Verdoodt Freija
Department of Oncology, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Herestraat 49 box 7003-06, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Belgian Cancer Registry, Research Department, Brussels, Belgium.
Arch Public Health. 2021 Jun 23;79(1):111. doi: 10.1186/s13690-021-00637-w.
Registration and coding of cause of death is prone to error since determining the exact underlying condition leading directly to death is challenging. In this study, causes of death from the death certificates were compared to patients' medical files interpreted by experts at University Hospitals Leuven (UHL), to assess concordance between sources and its impact on cancer survival assessment.
Breast cancer patients treated at UHL (2009-2014) (follow-up until December 31st 2016) were included in this study. Cause of death was obtained from death certificates and expert-reviewed medical files at UHL. Agreement was calculated using Cohen's kappa coefficient. Cause-specific survival (CSS) was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the relative survival probability (RS) using the Ederer II and Pohar Perme method.
A total of 2862 patients, of whom 354 died, were included. We found an agreement of 84.7% (kappa-value of 0.69 (95% C.I.: 0.62-0.77)) between death certificates and medical files. Death certificates had 10.7% false positive and 4.5% false negative rates. However, five-year CSS and RS measures were comparable for both sources.
For breast cancer patients included in our study, fair agreement of cause of death was seen between death certificates and medical files with similar CSS and RS estimations.
由于确定直接导致死亡的确切潜在病因具有挑战性,死亡原因的登记和编码容易出错。在本研究中,将死亡证明书中的死亡原因与鲁汶大学医院(UHL)的专家解读的患者病历进行比较,以评估数据源之间的一致性及其对癌症生存评估的影响。
纳入在UHL接受治疗的乳腺癌患者(2009 - 2014年)(随访至2016年12月31日)。死亡原因来自UHL的死亡证明书和专家审核的病历。使用科恩kappa系数计算一致性。使用Kaplan - Meier方法计算特定病因生存率(CSS),使用Ederer II和Pohar Perme方法计算相对生存概率(RS)。
共纳入2862例患者,其中354例死亡。我们发现死亡证明书和病历之间的一致性为84.7%(kappa值为0.69(95%置信区间:0.62 - 0.77))。死亡证明书的假阳性率为10.7%,假阴性率为4.5%。然而,两种数据源的五年CSS和RS测量结果具有可比性。
对于我们研究中纳入的乳腺癌患者,死亡证明书和病历之间在死亡原因方面存在合理的一致性,CSS和RS估计值相似。