两个癌症登记质量检查系统之间的比较：意大利癌症登记数据集网络中的功能特征与差异
Comparison between two cancer registry quality check systems: functional features and differences in an Italian network of cancer registries dataset.
作者信息
Tagliabue Giovanna, Perotti Viviana, Fabiano Sabrina, Tittarelli Andrea, Barigelletti Giulio, Contiero Paolo, Mazzucco Walter, Fusco Mario, Bidoli Ettore, Vicentini Massimo, Pesce Maria Teresa, Stracci Fabrizio
机构信息
Cancer Registry Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Environmental Epidemiology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
出版信息
Front Oncol. 2023 May 25;13:1197942. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1197942. eCollection 2023.
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to compare the functional characteristics of two computer-based systems for quality control of cancer registry data through analysis of their output differences.
METHODS
The study used cancer incidence data from 22 of the 49 registries of the Italian Network of Cancer Registries registered between 1986 and 2017. Two different data checking systems developed by the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the Joint Research Center (JRC) with the European Network of Cancer Registries (ENCR) and routinely used by registrars were used to check the quality of the data. The outputs generated by the two systems on the same dataset of each registry were analyzed and compared.
RESULTS
The study included a total of 1,305,689 cancer cases. The overall quality of the dataset was high, with 86% (81.7-94.1) microscopically verified cases and only 1.3% (0.03-3.06) cases with a diagnosis by death certificate only. The two check systems identified a low percentage of errors (JRC-ENCR 0.17% and IARC 0.003%) and about the same proportion of warnings (JRC-ENCR 2.79% and IARC 2.42%) in the dataset. Forty-two cases (2% of errors) and 7067 cases (11.5% of warnings) were identified by both systems in equivalent categories. 11.7% of warnings related to TNM staging were identified by the JRC-ENCR system only. The IARC system identified mainly incorrect combination of tumor grade and morphology (72.5% of warnings).
CONCLUSION
Both systems apply checks on a common set of variables, but some variables are checked by only one of the systems (for example, checks on patient follow-up and tumor stage at diagnosis are included by the JRC-ENCR system only). Most errors and warnings were categorized differently by the two systems, but usually described the same issues, with warnings related to "morphology" (JRC-ENCR) and "histology" (IARC) being the most frequent. It is important to find the right balance between the need to maintain high standards of data quality and the workability of such systems in the daily routine of the cancer registry.
目的
本研究旨在通过分析两个基于计算机的癌症登记数据质量控制系统的输出差异，比较它们的功能特性。
方法
本研究使用了意大利癌症登记网络49个登记处中22个登记处1986年至2017年期间的癌症发病率数据。由世界卫生组织国际癌症研究机构（IARC）和联合研究中心（JRC）与欧洲癌症登记网络（ENCR）共同开发并由登记员常规使用的两种不同的数据检查系统，用于检查数据质量。对两个系统在每个登记处的同一数据集上生成的输出进行了分析和比较。
结果
该研究共纳入1,305,689例癌症病例。数据集的整体质量较高，86%（81.7 - 94.1）的病例经显微镜检查证实，仅1.3%（0.03 - 3.06）的病例仅通过死亡证明诊断。两个检查系统在数据集中识别出的错误比例较低（JRC - ENCR为0.17%，IARC为0.003%），警告比例大致相同（JRC - ENCR为2.79%，IARC为2.42%）。两个系统在同等类别中均识别出42例（占错误的2%）和7067例（占警告的11.5%）。仅JRC - ENCR系统识别出11.7%与TNM分期相关的警告。IARC系统主要识别出肿瘤分级和形态的错误组合（占警告的72.5%）。
结论
两个系统都对一组共同的变量进行检查，但有些变量仅由其中一个系统检查（例如，对患者随访和诊断时肿瘤分期的检查仅包含在JRC - ENCR系统中）。两个系统对大多数错误和警告的分类不同，但通常描述的是相同的问题，其中与“形态学”（JRC - ENCR）和“组织学”（IARC）相关的警告最为常见。在维持高标准数据质量的需求与此类系统在癌症登记日常工作中的可操作性之间找到正确的平衡非常重要。
Zotero 插件