Preventing Chronic Disease | Using the National Death Index to Identify Duplicate Cancer Incident Cases in Florida and New York, 1996–2005 - CDC
Using the National Death Index to Identify Duplicate Cancer Incident Cases in Florida and New York, 1996–2005
Brad Wohler, MS; Baozhen Qiao, PhD; Hannah K. Weir, PhD; Jill A. MacKinnon, PhD; Maria J. Schymura, PhD
Suggested citation for this article: Wohler B, Qiao B, Weir HK, MacKinnon JA, Schymura MJ. Using the National Death Index to Identify Duplicate Cancer Incident Cases in Florida and New York, 1996–2005. Prev Chronic Dis 2014;11:140200. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd11.140200
.
.MEDSCAPE CMEMedscape, LLC is pleased to provide online continuing medical education (CME) for this journal article, allowing clinicians the opportunity to earn CME credit. This activity has been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education through the joint providership of Medscape, LLC and Preventing Chronic Disease. Medscape, LLC is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians. Medscape, LLC designates this Journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. All other clinicians completing this activity will be issued a certificate of participation. To participate in this journal CME activity: (1) review the learning objectives and author disclosures; (2) study the education content; (3) take the post-test with a 75% minimum passing score and complete the evaluation at www.medscape.org/journal/pcd; (4) view/print certificate. Release date: September 25, 2014; Expiration date: December 15, 2015 | Learning ObjectivesUpon completion of this activity, participants will be able to:
EDITORS Ellen Taratus, Editor, Preventing Chronic Disease. Disclosure: Ellen Taratus has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. CME AUTHOR Laurie Barclay, MD, Freelance writer and reviewer, Medscape, LLDisclosure: Laurie Barclay, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. AUTHORS AND CREDENTIALS Disclosures: Brad Wohler, MS; Baozhen Qiao, PhD; Hannah K. Weir, PhD; Jill MacKinnon, PhD; Maria J. Schymura, PhD have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Affiliations: Hannah Weir, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; Brad Wohler, Jill MacKinnon, Florida Cancer Data System, Miami, Florida; Baozhen Qiao, Maria J. Schymura, New York State Cancer Registry, Albany, New York. |
PEER REVIEWED
Abstract
Introduction
Cancer registries link incidence data to state death certificates to update vital status and identify missing cases; they also link these data to the National Death Index (NDI) to update vital status among patients who leave the state after their diagnosis. This study explored the use of information from NDI linkages to identify potential duplicate cancer cases registered in both Florida and New York.
Cancer registries link incidence data to state death certificates to update vital status and identify missing cases; they also link these data to the National Death Index (NDI) to update vital status among patients who leave the state after their diagnosis. This study explored the use of information from NDI linkages to identify potential duplicate cancer cases registered in both Florida and New York.
Methods
The Florida Cancer Data System (FCDS) and the New York State Cancer Registry (NYSCR) linked incidence data with state and NDI death records from 1996 through 2005. Information for patients whose death occurred in the reciprocal state (the death state) was exchanged. Potential duplicate cases were those that had the same diagnosis and the same or similar diagnosis date.
The Florida Cancer Data System (FCDS) and the New York State Cancer Registry (NYSCR) linked incidence data with state and NDI death records from 1996 through 2005. Information for patients whose death occurred in the reciprocal state (the death state) was exchanged. Potential duplicate cases were those that had the same diagnosis and the same or similar diagnosis date.
Results
NDI identified 4,657 FCDS cancer patients who died in New York and 2,740 NYSCR cancer patients who died in Florida. Matching identified 5,030 cases registered in both states; 508 were death certificate-only (DCO) cases in the death state’s registry, and 3,760 (74.8%) were potential duplicates. Among FCDS and NYSCR patients who died and were registered in the registry of the reciprocal state, more than 50% were registered with the same cancer diagnosis, and approximately 80% had similar diagnosis dates (within 1 year).
NDI identified 4,657 FCDS cancer patients who died in New York and 2,740 NYSCR cancer patients who died in Florida. Matching identified 5,030 cases registered in both states; 508 were death certificate-only (DCO) cases in the death state’s registry, and 3,760 (74.8%) were potential duplicates. Among FCDS and NYSCR patients who died and were registered in the registry of the reciprocal state, more than 50% were registered with the same cancer diagnosis, and approximately 80% had similar diagnosis dates (within 1 year).
Conclusion
NDI identified DCO cases in the death state’s cancer registry and a large proportion of potential duplicate cases. Standards are needed for assigning primary residence when multiple registries report the same case. The registry initiating the NDI linkage should consider sharing relevant information with death state registries so that these registries can remove erroneous DCO cases from their databases.
NDI identified DCO cases in the death state’s cancer registry and a large proportion of potential duplicate cases. Standards are needed for assigning primary residence when multiple registries report the same case. The registry initiating the NDI linkage should consider sharing relevant information with death state registries so that these registries can remove erroneous DCO cases from their databases.
Figure. State, territory, and metropolitan-area cancer registries participating in the National Program of Cancer Registries or the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results programs or both programs as of 2000. Source: US Cancer Statistics Working Group (27). [A text description of this figure is also available.]
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr Lillian Ingster, director of the NDI at CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, for her review and thoughtful comments on this manuscript. This work was supported by CDC through cooperative agreement DP003872 with the FCDS and cooperative agreements DP000783 and DP003897 with the NYSCR. There are no financial disclosures from any of the authors. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of CDC.
Author Information
Corresponding Author: Hannah K. Weir, PhD, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy, MS-F76, Atlanta, GA 30341. Telephone: 770-488-3006. E-mail: hbw4@cdc.gov.
Author Affiliations: Brad Wohler, Jill A. MacKinnon, Florida Cancer Data System, Miami, Florida; Baozhen Qiao, Maria J. Schymura, New York State Cancer Registry, Albany, New York.
.png)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario