Deciphering surveillance, epidemiology, and end results data analysis: Are We Seeing the Whole Picture?

Cancer

Volumn 117, Issue 18, 2011, Pages 4112-4115

  Oliver, Kate E ^a   Farley, John H ^b  

^a WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; DATA ANALYSIS; ENDOMETRIUM CANCER; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PERITONEUM METASTASIS; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; UNITED STATES;

ENDOMETRIAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; NEOPLASM STAGING;

EID: 80052431227     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.26027     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures, 2010. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2010.
2. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Trends Progress Report-2009 of 2010 Update. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services; 2010.
3. Creasman WT,. The current status of lymphadenectomy in the management of endometrial cancer. Womens Health (Lond Engl). 2011; 7: 33-35.
4. Mariani A, Dowdy SC, Podratz KC,. New surgical staging of endometrial cancer: 20 years later. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009; 105: 110-111.
5. Cooke EW, Pappas L, Gaffney DK,. Does the revised International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system for endometrial cancer lead to increased discrimination in patient outcomes? Cancer. 2011: 117: 4231-4237.
6. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. FIGO web site. Accessed January 12, 2011.
7. Pecorelli S,. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009; 105: 103-104.
8. Creasman W,. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the endometrium [serial online]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009; 105: 109.
9. Boronow RC, Morrow CP, Creasman WT, et al Surgical staging in endometrial cancer: clinical-pathologic findings of a prospective study. Obstet Gynecol. 1984; 63: 825-832. (Pubitemid 14105231)
10. Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Kurman RJ, et al Relationship between surgical-pathological risk factors and outcome in clinical stage I and II carcinoma of the endometrium: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 1991; 40: 55-65.
11. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER). SEER web site. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute (NCI); 2011. Accessed January 12, 2011.
12. Fanning J, Gangestad A, Andrews SJ,. National Cancer Data Base/Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results: potential insensitive-measure bias. Gynecol Oncol. 2000; 77: 450-453. (Pubitemid 30368566)
13. Fremgen AM, Bland KI, McGinnis LS Jr, et al Clinical highlights from the National Cancer Data Base, 1999. CA Cancer J Clin. 1999; 49: 145-158. (Pubitemid 29353928)
14. Menck HR, Cunningham MP, Jessup JM, et al The growth and maturation of the National Cancer Data Base. Cancer. 1997; 80: 2296-2304. (Pubitemid 28007401)
15. Zippin C, Lum D, Hankey BF,. Completeness of hospital cancer case reporting from the SEER Program of the National Cancer Institute. Cancer. 1995; 76: 2343-2350.
16. Lewin SN, Herzog TJ, Barrena Medel NI, et al Comparative performance of the 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics' staging system for uterine corpus cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116: 1141-1149.