Wéber András, Szatmári István, Dobozi Mária, Hilbert Lászlóné, Branyiczkiné Géczy Gabriella, Nagy Péter, Kásler Miklós, Polgár Csaba, Kenessey István
1 Országos Onkológiai Intézet Budapest, Ráth György u. 7-9., 1122 Magyarország.
2 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Cancer Surveillance Branch Lyon France.
Orv Hetil. 2022 Sep 11;163(37):1481-1489. doi: 10.1556/650.2022.32573.
Introduction: In international comparison, Hungary is in the forefront of cancer incidence and mortality statistics. Based on paper-based death certificates, mortality statistics are compiled by the Hungarian Central Statistical Office, while population-based measures of cancer incidences are performed by the Hungarian National Cancer Registry. Objective: Linking the records of these two independent databases can highlight their weaknesses and provide an opportunity to reconcile and verify collected data, which may emphasize the need to expand current data exchange protocols. Method: Based on the Hungarian unique health care insurance ID, the mortality database of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office between 2012 and 2020 was compared with the data of the Hungarian National Cancer Registry from 2001 to 2020. Deaths in 2018, in particular those related to lung cancer, were examined in more depth to demonstrate the biases resulting from erroneous data collection. Results: The mortality database of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office contained 32 586 cases with an underlying cause of death of malignant neoplasm for 2018, of which 29 970 were identified in the Hungarian National Cancer Registry. Out of the 8716 deaths coded to lung cancer, 7957 corresponding individuals were also found in the Registry. From the matches, 7381 cases were marked with lung cancer in the Hungarian National Cancer Registry. For the remaining 576 cases, the Registry recorded different types of cancers, of which in 69 cases with lung metastasis. Discussion: The differences between the two databases may be caused by methodological differences in data collection, incomplete, inaccurate reporting and differences in processing algorithms. Nevertheless, the majority of the data in the examined databases were found to be appropriate for epidemiological studies. Conclusion: Based on the outcomes of the present analysis, a revision of the data transfer between the two institutions is in order. The introduction of electronic Death certificate recording and validity checks are expected to improve the reliability of ID numbers and may shorten data processing times.
在国际比较中，匈牙利在癌症发病率和死亡率统计方面处于前沿位置。基于纸质死亡证明，匈牙利中央统计局编制死亡率统计数据，而匈牙利国家癌症登记处则开展基于人群的癌症发病率测量工作。目的：将这两个独立数据库的记录相链接，可以凸显它们的弱点，并提供一个协调和核实所收集数据的机会，这可能会强调扩大当前数据交换协议的必要性。方法：基于匈牙利独特的医疗保险ID，将匈牙利中央统计局2012年至2020年的死亡率数据库与匈牙利国家癌症登记处2001年至2020年的数据进行比较。对2018年的死亡病例，尤其是与肺癌相关的死亡病例进行了更深入的研究，以证明错误数据收集所导致的偏差。结果：匈牙利中央统计局的死亡率数据库包含2018年32586例潜在死因是恶性肿瘤的病例，其中29970例在匈牙利国家癌症登记处得到确认。在编码为肺癌的8716例死亡病例中，登记处也找到了7957名相应个体。在匹配的病例中，匈牙利国家癌症登记处有7381例标记为肺癌。对于其余576例病例，登记处记录的是不同类型的癌症，其中69例有肺转移。讨论：两个数据库之间的差异可能是由数据收集方法的差异、报告不完整不准确以及处理算法的差异造成的。然而，经检查的数据库中的大多数数据被认为适合用于流行病学研究。结论：基于本分析的结果，两个机构之间的数据传输需要修订。引入电子死亡证明记录和有效性检查有望提高身份证号码的可靠性，并可能缩短数据处理时间。
