Low proportion of unreported cervical treatments in the cancer registry of Norway between 1998 and 2013

Acta Oncologica

Volumn 57, Issue 12, 2018, Pages 1663-1670

  Leinonen, Maarit K ^a   Hansen, Svenn A ^b   Skare, Gry Baadstrand ^a   Skaaret, Inger Berit ^a   Silva, Monica ^a   Johannesen, Tom Børge ^a   Nygård, Mari ^a  

^a CANCER REGISTRY OF NORWAY   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ABLATION THERAPY; ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER REGISTRY; DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH; ENDOMETRIUM CANCER; FEMALE; FEMALE GENITAL TRACT CANCER; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL HISTORY; MIDDLE AGED; NORWAY; OVARY CANCER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADICAL HYSTERECTOMY; TUMOR INVASION; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CONIZATION; UTERINE CERVIX DYSPLASIA; GYNECOLOGIC SURGERY; HOSPITAL; INCIDENCE; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; MEDICAL RECORD; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; REGISTER; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UTERINE CERVIX; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR;

ADULT; CERVIX UTERI; DATA ACCURACY; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; HOSPITALS; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MIDDLE AGED; NORWAY; PATIENT DISCHARGE; PATIENT DISCHARGE SUMMARIES; REGISTRIES; UTERINE CERVICAL DYSPLASIA; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 85053276953     PISSN: 0284186X     EISSN: 1651226X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0284186X.2018.1497296     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Von Karsa L, Arbyn M, De Vuyst H, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. Summary of the supplements on HPV screening and vaccination. Papillomavirus Res. 2015;1:22–31
2. Chapter in a book: Therapy and vaccination. In: IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, volume 90: human papillomaviruses. Lyon: IARC Press; 2007. p. 156–176
3. Arbyn M, Anttila A, Jordan J, et al., editors. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. Brussels: Office for official publications of the European Communities; 2008
4. Bjørge T, Skare GB, Bjørge L, et al. Adverse pregnancy outcomes after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:1265–1273
5. Pukkala E, Engholm G, Højsgaard Schmidt LK, et al. Nordic cancer registries–an overview of their procedures and data comparability. Acta Oncol. 2017;11:1–16
6. Enerly E, Bray F, Mellem C, et al. Quality assessment of the registration of vulvar and vaginal premalignant lesions at the Cancer Registry of Norway. Acta Oncol. 2012;51:45–50
7. G.B., Skare S., Lönnberg T., Bjørge, Livmorhalsprogrammet. Årsrapport 2015. Oslo: Cancer Registry of Norway; 2016. [In Norwegian]
8. Mallin K, Palis BE, Watroba N, et al. Completeness of American cancer registry treatment data: implications for quality of care research. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:428–437
9. Norwegian SNOMED Coding System. [cited 2018 Jan 29]. Available from: https://www.kreftregisteret.no/Registrene/Innrapportering/Rapportering-av-patologiinformasjon/
10. A.Fritz, C.Percy, A.Jack, editors. International classification of diseases for oncology. 3rd ed., First Revision. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013
11. Sterne JAC, White IR, Carlin JB, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ 2009;338:b2393
12. Rubin DB. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley; 1987
13. Graham JW, Olchowski AE, Gilreath TD. How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prev Sci. 2007;8:206–213
14. Kyrgiou M, Athanasiou A, Paraskevaidi M, et al. Adverse obstetric outcomes after local treatment for cervical preinvasive and early invasive disease according to cone depth: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2016;354:i3633
15. Khan MJ, Smith-McCune KK. Treatment of cervical precancers: back to basics. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:1339–1343
16. Wright TC, Jr Massad LS, Dunton CJ, et al. 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:340–345
17. Moscicki AB, Ma Y, Wibbelsman C, et al. Rate of and risks for regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 in adolescents and young women. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1373–1380
18. Ho GY, Einstein MH, Romney SL, et al. Risk factors for persistent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 1 and 2: managed by watchful waiting. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2011;15:268–275
19. McAllum B, Sykes PH, Sadler L, et al. Is the treatment of CIN 2 always necessary in women under 25 years old? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205:478.e1–477
20. Discacciati MG, de Souza CA, d’Otavianno MG, et al. Outcome of expectant management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 in women followed for 12 months. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;155:204–208
21. Piris S, Bravo V, Alvarez C, et al. Natural history of histologically moderate cervical dysplasia in adolescent and young women. Onco Targets Ther. 2014;7:2101–2106
22. Waxman AG, Chelmow D, Darragh TM, et al. Revised terminology for cervical histopathology and its implications for management of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:1465–1471
23. Stoler MH, Ronnett BM, Joste NE, et al. The Interpretive variability of cervical biopsies and its relationship to HPV status. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015;39:729–736
24. Bray F, Parkin DM. Evaluation of data quality in the cancer registry: principles and methods. Part I: comparability, validity and timeliness. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:747
25. Cancer Registry of Norway. Cancer in Norway 2016–cancer incidence, mortality, survival and prevalence in Norway. Oslo: Cancer Registry of Norway; 2017
26. Borch KB, Weiderpass E, Braaten T, et al. Physical activity and risk of endometrial cancer in the Norwegian Women and Cancer (NOWAC) study. Int J Cancer. 2017;140:1809–1818
27. Pearson-Stuttard J, Zhou B, Kontis V, et al. Worldwide burden of cancer attributable to diabetes and high body-mass index: a comparative risk assessment. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;6:92–95
28. Coebergh JW, van den Hurk C, Rosso S, et al. EUROCOURSE lessons learned from and for population-based cancer registries in Europe and their programme owners: improving performance by research programming for public health and clinical evaluation. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:997
29. Batra S, Sachdeva S. Organizing standardized electronic healthcare records data for mining. Health Policy Technol. 2016;5:226–242
30. Mooney SJ, Pejaver V. Big data in public health: terminology, machine learning, and privacy. Annu Rev Public Health. 2017
31. Wiens J, Shenoy ES. Machine learning for healthcare: on the verge of a major shift in healthcare epidemiology. Wiens Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66:149–153
32. van Walraven C, Bennett C, Forster AJ. Administrative database research infrequently used validated diagnostic or procedural codes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1054–1059
33. Sund R. Quality of the Finnish hospital discharge register: a systematic review. Scand J Public Health. 2012;40:505
34. I.J.Bakken, S.O.Gystad, O.O.Christensen,. Comparison of data from the Norwegian Patient Register and the Cancer Registry of Norway. Tidsskr nor Laegeforen. 2012;132:1336–1340. [In Norwegian]
35. Beatty JD, Adachi M, Bonham C, et al. Utilization of cancer registry data for monitoring quality of care. Am J Surg. 2011;201:645–649
36. Caldarella A, Amunni G, Angiolini C, et al. Feasibility of evaluating quality cancer care using registry data and electronic health records: a population-based study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012;24:411–418
37. Gurney J, Sarfati D, Dennett E, et al. The completeness of cancer treatment data on the National Health Collections. N Z Med J. 2013;126:69–74
38. Siesling S, Louwman WJ, Kwast A, et al. Uses of cancer registries for public health and clinical research in Europe: results of the European Network of Cancer Registries survey among 161 population-based cancer registries during 2010–2012. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:1039–1049