Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A vision for cancer incidence surveillance in the United States

  • Published:
Cancer Causes & Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A comprehensive framework for cancer surveillance should span the entire lifespan and be capable of providing information on risk, burden, disparity, cost, cancer care, survival, and death. Cancer incidence, the point in the continuum when an individual is diagnosed with cancer, has a strong, well-developed system to produce information about newly diagnosed cancer cases. However, in the future, this system must be enhanced and integrated with other cancer surveillance networks and other systems to provide timely information on the burden of newly diagnosed patients with respect to various cross-cutting population characteristics (e.g., social, economic, race/ethnic, urbanicity, or access to care) to define, monitor, and reduce incidence and various disparities noted among population groups. Collaboration in data collection, standard setting, surveillance activities, research, education and training, data use, and advocacy among all registries and national programs will be important to the continued success of the cancer incidence surveillance system. The cancer registry is an integral part of the infrastructure to reduce the burden of cancer, including the numbers of newly diagnosed cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(1994) State cancer registries: status of authorizing legislation and enabling regulations-United States, October 1993. MMWR 43: 71-75.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hutton MD, Simpson LD, Miller DS, Weir HK, McDavid K, Hall HI (2001) Progress toward nationwide cancer surveillance: an evaluation of the National Program of Cancer Registries, 1994-1999. J Registry Manage 28(3): 113-120.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Swan J, Wingo PA, Clive R, et al. (1998) Cancer surveillance in the US: can we have a national system? Cancer 83: 1282-1291.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hulstrom D, ed. (2001) Standards for Cancer Registries, Vol. II: Data Dictionary and Definitions, 6th edn. Version 9.1. Springfield, IL: North American Association of Central Cancer Registries.

  5. Stroup NE, Zack MM, Wharton M (1994) Sources of routinely collected data for surveillance. In: Teutsch SM, Churchill RE, eds. Principles and Practice of Public Health Surveillance, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 31-85.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hankey BF, Ries LAG, Edwards BK (1999) The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program: A National Resource. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8: 1117-1121.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kim H.-J, Fay MP, Feuer EJ, Midthune DN (2000) Permutation tests for joinpoint regression with applications to cancer rates. Stat Med 19: 335-351.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ries LAG, Wingo PA, Miller DS, et al. (2000) The annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973-1997, with a special section on colorectal cancer. Cancer 88: 2398-2424.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Howe HL, Wingo PA, Thun MJ, et al. (2001) Annual report to the Nation on the status of cancer, 1973-1998, featuring cancers with increasing trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 93: 824-842.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Edwards BK, Howe HL, Ries LAG, et al. (2002) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973-1999, featuring implications of age and aging on the US cancer burden. Cancer 94(10): 2766-2792.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Holford TR (1991) Understanding the effects of age, period and cohort on incidence and mortality rates. Annu Rev Public Health 12: 425-457.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Holford TR (1983) The estimation of age, period and cohort effects for vital rates. Biometrics 39: 311-324.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hankey BF, Ries LA, Kosary CL, et al. (2000) Partitioning linear trends in age-adjusted rates. Cancer Causes Control 11(1): 31-35.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hulstrom D, Gershman ST, Havener L, eds. (2003) NAACCR Standards Implementation Guidelines. Springfield (IL): North American Association of Central Cancer Registries.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cooper GS, Yuan Z, Stange KC, Dennis LK, Amini SB, Rimm AA (2000) Agreement of Medicare claims and tumor registry data for assessment of cancer-related treatment. Med Care 38: 411-421.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Klabunde CN, Potosky AL, Harlan LC, Kramer BS (1998) Trends and black/white differences in treatment for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Med Care 36: 1337-1348.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wingo PA, Luke E, O'Brien K, et al. (2001) Population-based patterns of care studies: collaboration among state cancer registries, The American College of Surgeons, and The American Cancer Society. J Registry Manage 28: 5-17.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ayanian JZ, Kohler BA, Abe T, Epstein AM (1993) The relation between health insurance coverage and clinical outcomes among women with breast cancer. N Engl J Med 329: 326-331.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Brooks JM, Chrischilles E, Scott S, Ritho J, Chen-Hardee S (2000) Information gained from linking SEER cancer registry data to state-level hospital discharge abstracts. Med Care 38: 1131-1140.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Pickle LW, Munjiole M, Jones GK, White AA (1999) Exploring spatial patterns of mortality: the new atlas of United States mortality. Stat Med 18: 3211-3220.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mariotto A, Capocaccia R, Verdecchia A, et al. (2002) Projecting SEER cancer survival rates to the U.S.: an ecological regression approach. Cancer Causes Control 13(2): 101-111.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wiggins L, ed. (2002) Using geographic information systems technology in the collection. Analyses and Presentation of Cancer Registry Data: A Handbook of Basic Practices, Springfield (IL): North American Association of Central Cancer Registries.

  23. Krieger N, Chen JT, Waterman PD, Soobader MJ, Subramanian SV, Carson R (2002) 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 156(5): 471-482.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kaufman JS, Kaufman S (2001) Assessment of structured socioeconomic effects on health. Epidemiology 12: 157-167.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mandelblatt JS, Ganz PA, Kahn KL (1999) Proposed agenda for the measurement of quality-of-care outcomes in oncology practice. J Clin Oncol 17: 2614-2622.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Potosky AL, Harlan LC, Standford JL, et al. (1999) Prostate cancer practice patterns and quality of life: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 91: 1719-1724.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Klabunde CN, Warren JL, Legler JM (2002) Assessing comorbidity using claims data. An overview. Med Care 40(Suppl): IV-26-IV-35.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Tucker TC, Howe HL (2001) Measuring the quality of central cancer registries: the NAACCR perspective. J Registry Manage 28: 41-44.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Fritz A (2001) The SEER program's commitment to data quality. J Registry Manage 28(1): 35-40.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hewitt M, Simone J, eds. (2002) Enhancing Data Systems to Improve the Quality of Cancer Care. Washington D.C: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. West DW (2000) Building a fully developed research program. Presented at the E-Toolkit Workshop. Seattle, WA.

  32. Tucker TC (2000) Building the research capacity of your registry. Presented at the NAACCR E-Toolkit Workshop, Seattle. WA.

  33. Kohler BA (2000) Building research capacity for central registries in state health departments. Presented at the NAACCR E-Toolkit Workshop, Seattle, WA.

  34. Surveillance Implementation Group(1999) Cancer surveillance research implementation plan. Rockville, MD: National Cancer Institute, pp. 4-8.

    Google Scholar 

  35. North American Association of Central Cancer Registries(2003) Cancer Surveillance Institute I: Principles and Public Health Applications. Training course, San Jose, CA.

  36. The SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Edn. (1998) Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute.

  37. Travis LB, Curtis RE, Glimelius B, et al. (1993) Second cancers among long-term survivors of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 85: 1932-1937.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Howe HL, ed. (2003) A Review of the definition for multiple primary cancers in the United States. Workshop Proceedings from December 4-6, 2002 in Princeton, New Jersey, Springfield (IL): North American Association of Central Cancer Registries.

  39. McLaughlin C (2002) Confidentiality protection in publicly released central cancer registry data. J Registry Manage 29(3): 84-88.

    Google Scholar 

  40. National Cancer Institute(2001) Confidentiality, data security, and cancer research: report of a workshop, Bethesda, MD, December 1-2, 1999. Available at: http://cancer.gov/scienceresources/ announcements/confintro.html. Accessed April 10.

  41. Deapen D, Chen VW, Gershman S, Croucher T, Standford J, Lerchen M (1999) Data Use and Confidentiality Task Force Report. Sacramento, CA: North American Association of Central Cancer Registries.

    Google Scholar 

  42. North American Association of Central Cancer Registries(2002) NAACCR Workshop Report: Data Security and Confidentiality. Springfield (IL): North American Association of Central Cancer Registries.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Nobles M (2000) History counts: a comparative analysis of racial/ color categorization in US and Brazilian Censuses. Am J Public Health 90: 1738-1745.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Wallman KK, Evinger S, Schechter S (2000) Measuring our nation's diversity: developing a common language for data on race/ethnicity. Am J Public Health 90: 1704-1708.

    Google Scholar 

  45. URL (2003) http://www.census.gov/acs/www/. Accessed on March 20.

  46. North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (2002) CINA+ Online. http://www.naaccr.org/. Accessed on October 18.

  47. URL (2003) http://seer.cancer.gov/query/. Accessed on March 20.

  48. Rakowski W, Clark MA, Ehrich B (1999) Smoking and cancer screening for women ages 42-75: associations in the 1990-1994 National Health Interview Surveys. Prev Med 29(6 Pt 1): 487-495.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(1998) Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System User's Guide. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Available at www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/ brfss/usersguide.htm).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Pickle LW, Feuer EJ, Edwards BK (2000) Prediction of incident cancer cases in non-SEER counties. Presented at the annual meeting of the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, New Orleans, LA, April 19.

  51. Ries LAG, Eisner MP, Kosary CL, eds. et al. (2002) SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973-1999, Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/ 1973-1999.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NAACCR. Inc, 2121 West White Oaks Drive, 62704-6495, Springfield, IL, USA

    Holly L. Howe

  2. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

    Brenda K. Edwards

  3. Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

    John L. Young

  4. Illinois Department of Public Health, Springfield, Illinois, USA

    Tiefu Shen

  5. Northern California Cancer Center, Union City, California, USA

    Dee W. West

  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

    Mary Hutton

  7. Louisiana Tumor Registry, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA

    Catherine N. Correa

Authors
  1. Holly L. Howe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brenda K. Edwards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John L. Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tiefu Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dee W. West
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mary Hutton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Catherine N. Correa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Holly L. Howe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Howe, H.L., Edwards, B.K., Young, J.L. et al. A vision for cancer incidence surveillance in the United States. Cancer Causes Control 14, 663–672 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025667524781

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025667524781

Search

Navigation