Protecting Confidentiality in Cancer Registry Data with Geographic Identifiers

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 186, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 83-91

  Yu, Mandi ^a   Reiter, Jerome Phillip ^b   Zhu, Li ^a   Liu, Benmei ^a   Cronin, Kathleen A ^a   Feuer, Eric J ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b Duke University   (United States)

Author keywords

and End Results Program; breast cancer; classification and regression trees; Epidemiology; health disparities; multiple imputation; partial synthetic data; Surveillance

Indexed keywords

CANCER; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HEALTH SERVICES; HEALTH STATUS; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEIGHBORHOOD; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RESEARCH WORK; SAMPLING; SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS; TUMOR;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CALIFORNIA; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER REGISTRY; CONFIDENTIALITY; DATA ANALYSIS; ETHNICITY; HEALTH CARE DISPARITY; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; NEIGHBORHOOD; PATIENT IDENTIFICATION; RACE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SIMULATION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ANCESTRY GROUP; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; PATHOLOGY; REGISTER; SEX RATIO; SMALL-AREA ANALYSIS; SOCIOECONOMICS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; YOUNG ADULT;

CALIFORNIA; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALIFORNIA; CONFIDENTIALITY; CONTINENTAL POPULATION GROUPS; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; REGISTRIES; SEER PROGRAM; SEX DISTRIBUTION; SMALL-AREA ANALYSIS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85024390618     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: 14766256     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwx050     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Krieger N, Chen JT, Waterman PD, et al. Geocoding and monitoring of US socioeconomic inequalities in mortality and cancer incidence: Does the choice of area-based measure and geographic level matter?: The Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156(5):471-482.
2. Yu M, Tatalovich Z, Gibson JT, et al. Using a composite index of socioeconomic status to investigate health disparities while protecting the confidentiality of cancer registry data. Cancer Causes Control. 2014;25(1):81-92.
3. Armstrong MP, Rushton G, Zimmerman DL. Geographically masking health data to preserve confidentiality. Stat Med. 1999;18(5):497-525.
4. Hampton KH, Fitch MK, Allshouse WB, et al. Mapping health data: Improved privacy protection with donut method geomasking. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(9):1062-1069.
5. Zandbergen PA. Ensuring confidentiality of geocoded health data: Assessing geographic masking strategies for individuallevel data. Adv Med. 2014;2014:567049.
6. Burgette LF, Reiter JP. Multiple-shrinkage multinomial probit models with applications to simulating geographies in public use data. Bayesian Anal. 2013;8(2):453-478.
7. Machanavajjhala A, Kifer D, Abowd J, et al. Privacy: Theory meets practice on the map. In: 2008 IEEE 24th International Conference on Data Engineering, Cancun, Mexico, 7-12 April 2008. (IEEE catalog no. CFP08026-PRT). Washington, DC: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; 2008: 277-286.
8. Paiva T, Chakraborty A, Reiter J, et al. Imputation of confidential data sets with spatial locations using disease mapping models. Stat Med. 2014;33(11):1928-1945.
9. Quick H, Holan SH, Wikle CK, et al. Bayesian marked point process modeling for generating fully synthetic public use data with point-referenced geography. Spat Stat. 2015;14(C): 439-451.
10. Wang H, Reiter JP. Multiple imputation for sharing precise geographies in public use data. Ann Appl Stat. 2012;6(1): 229-252.
11. Little RJ. Statistical analysis of masked data. J Off Stat. 1993; 9(2):407-426.
12. Reiter JP. Inference for partially synthetic, public use microdata sets. Surv Methodol. 2003;29(2):181-188.
13. Kennickell AB. Multiple imputation and disclosure protection: The case of the 1995 Survey of Consumer Finances. In: Alvey W, Jamerson B, eds. Record Linkage Techniques-1997. Proceedings of an International Workshop and Exposition. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1997:248-267.
14. Abowd JM, Stinson M, Benedetto G. Final Report to the Social Security Administration on the SIPP/SSA/IRS Public Use File Project. Suitland, MD: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Program, Bureau of the Census, US Department of Commerce; 2006. https://ecommons.cornell. edu/handle/1813/43929. Accessed May 15, 2015.
15. Kinney SK, Reiter JP, Miranda J. Improving the Synthetic Longitudinal Business Database. (Paper CES-WP-14-12). Suitland, MD: Center for Economic Studies, Bureau of the Census, US Department of Commerce; 2014. http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/cenwpaper/14-12.htm. Accessed May 15, 2015.
16. Kinney SK, Reiter JP, Reznek AP, et al. Towards unrestricted public use business microdata: The Synthetic Longitudinal Business Database. Int Stat Rev. 2011;79(3):362-384.
17. Drechsler J. Synthetic Datasets for Statistical Disclosure Control: Theory and Implementation. (Lecture Notes in Statistics, vol. 201). New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media; 2011.
18. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, National Cancer Institute. List of SEER registries. http://seer. cancer.gov/registries/list.html. Accessed July 15, 2016.
19. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, National Cancer Institute. SEER Stat Database: Incidence-SEER 20 Regs, November 2014 Submission (1973-2013 Varying)-Linked to County Attributes-Total U.S., 1969-2013 Counties. Rockville,MD: National Cancer Institute; 2015.
20. Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, et al. Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the socalled triple-negative phenotype: A population-based study from the California Cancer Registry. Cancer. 2007;109(9): 1721-1728.
21. MacKinnon JA, Duncan RC, Huang Y, et al. Detecting an association between socioeconomic status and late stage breast cancer using spatial analysis and area-based measures. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16(4):756-762.
22. Ward E, Jemal A, Cokkinides V, et al. Cancer disparities by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. CA Cancer J Clin. 2004;54(2):78-93.
23. Bureau of the Census, US Department of Commerce. 2009-2013 American Community Survey. (Summary file). Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce; 2015. http://ftp2.census.gov/. Accessed May 8, 2017.
24. De'ath G. Multivariate regression trees: A new technique for modeling species-environment relationships. Ecology. 2002; 83(4):1105-1117.
25. Breiman L, Friedman J, Stone CJ, et al. Classification and Regression Trees. 1st ed. (Wadsworth Statistics/Probability). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1984.
26. Bel L, Allard D, Laurent JM, et al. CART algorithm for spatial data: Application to environmental and ecological data. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2009;53(8):3082-3093
27. Reiter JP. Using CART to generate partially synthetic public use microdata. J Off Stat. 2005;21(3):441-462.
28. Drechsler J, Reiter JP. An empirical evaluation of easily implemented, nonparametric methods for generating synthetic datasets. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2011;55(12):3232-3243.
29. Karr AF, Kohnen CN, Oganian A, et al. A framework for evaluating the utility of data altered to protect confidentiality. Am Stat. 2006;60(3):224-232.
30. Tiwari RC, Clegg LX, Zou Z. Efficient interval estimation for age-adjusted cancer rates. Stat Methods Med Res. 2006;15(6): 547-569.
31. Edge S, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al., eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 7th ed. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company; 2011.
32. Howlader N, Altekruse SF, Li CI, et al. US incidence of breast cancer subtypes defined by joint hormone receptor and HER2 status. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(5):dju055.
33. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, National Cancer Institute. Previous version: SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2012. https://seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1975-2012/. Updated November 18, 2015. Accessed May 8, 2017.
34. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, National Cancer Institute. SEER Stat Database: Populations-Total U.S. (1990-2014): Single Ages to 85+, Katrina/Rita Adjustment-Linked to County Attributes-Total U.S., 1969-2014 Counties. Rockville,MD: National Cancer Institute; 2015.
35. Kuo TM, Mobley LR, Anselin L. Geographic disparities in late-stage breast cancer diagnosis in California. Health Place. 2011;17(1):327-334.
36. McLafferty S,Wang F, Luo L, et al. Rural-urban inequalities in late-stage breast cancer: Spatial and social dimensions of risk and access. Environ Plann B Plann Des. 2011;38(4): 726-740.
37. Kakwani N, Wagstaff A, van Doorslaer E. Socioeconomic inequalities in health: Measurement, computation, and statistical inference. J Econom. 1997;77(1):87-103.
38. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, National Cancer Institute. Documentation for the ASCII text data files. http://seer.cancer.gov/data/documentation.html. Accessed July 15, 2016.
39. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, National Cancer Institute. Specialized SEER Stat datasets. http://seer. cancer.gov/resources/specialized.html. Accessed July 15, 2016.
40. Bureau of the Census, US Department of Commerce. Survey of Income and Program Participation. Synthetic SIPP data. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/sipp/guidance/sipp-synthetic-beta-data-product.html. Revised July 14, 2016. Accessed May 8, 2017.
41. Bureau of the Census, US Department of Commerce. Synthetic Longitudinal Business Dabatase (SynLBD). Syn LBD beta data. https://www.census.gov/ces/dataproducts/synlbd/. Accessed May 8, 2017.
42. Vilhuber L. Broadening data access through synthetic data. Presented at the NCRN Meeting Spring 2015, Washington, DC, May 7-8, 2015. Ithaca, NY: NSF-Census Research Network, Cornell University; 2015. (NCRN Coordinating Office preprint 1813:40185). https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/40185. Accessed May 15, 2015.
43. Reiter JP, Oganian A, Karr AF. Verification servers: Enabling analysts to assess the quality of inferences from public use data. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2009;53(4):1475-1482.
44. McClure DR, Reiter JP. Towards providing automated feedback on the quality of inferences from synthetic datasets. J Priv Confid. 2012;4(1):171-188.