Journal of Medical Systems

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 25–44 | Cite as

Feasibility study of a statewide pathology-based cancer surveillance system in Minnesota

I. Information characteristics
  • Alan P. Bender
  • Helen G. Jagger
  • John Fraser
  • Wendy Anderson
  • Laël C. Gatewood
  • Stephen Larkin
  • Geary Olsen
Articles

Abstract

The Minnesota Department of Health has completed a 2-year feasibility study comparing the completeness and accuracy of information from pathology-based cancer ascertainment with that of the traditional surveillance method based on hospital discharge records. Overall, for incident cancers, the primary site designation of the pathology-based system was correct for 94.5% of the cancers, and the histologic designation was correct for 97.0% of the cancers. For prevalent cancers the accuracy of both site and histology designation was inadequate at 81.0 and 76.8% respectively. Pathology-based ascertainment was more complete than discharge-based surveillance (98.4% vs. 96.6%), which reflected the growing number of cancers diagnosed in hospital outpatient departments and medical clinics. The major limitation of the pathology-based system was the inability to determine from written pathology reports whether the cancer was newly diagnosed. However, when asked, pathologists correctly determined the incidence status for approximately 75% of the cancers. In light of the results of the feasibility study, Minnesota is implementing a pathology-based system as a cost-effective, scientifically valid method to meet the state's current and future needs for cancer surveillance.

Keywords

Incident Cancer Surveillance System Prevalent Cancer Feasibility Study Pathology Report 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Connelly, R. R., Cambell, P., and Elsenberg, H., Cancer registry of cancer cases in Connecticut.Public Health Rep. 83:386–390, 1968.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goldberg, J., Gelfand, H. M., and Levy, P. S., Registry evaluation methods: A review and case study.Epidemiol. Rev. 2:210–220, 1980.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pedersen, E., The future of cancer registries. Recent results in cancer research.Cancer Research 50:182–184, 1975.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clemmesen, J., Uses of cancer registration in the study of carcinogenesis.J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 67:5–13, 1981.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    International Agency for Research on Cancer, Purpose of cancer registration.Cancer Reg. Techniques 21:7–17, 1978.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brooke, E. M.,The current and future use of registries in health information systems, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1974.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mack, T. M., and Henderson, B. E., Cancer registries for general and special uses.Cancer Epidemiology in the USA and USSR (NIH Pub. No. 80-2044), 1980, pp. 57–61.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Young, J. L., Percy, C. L., Asire, A. J., et al., Cancer incidence and mortality in the United States, 1973–1977.Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 57, 1981.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Myers, M., The cancer surveillance epidemiology and end results (SEER) program.Cancer Epidemiology in the USA and USSR (NIH Pub. No. 80-2044), 53–56, 1980.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bender, A. P., and Olsen, G. W.,An analytic study of centralized cancer registries in the United States. Unpublished report, Minnesota Department of Health, 1984.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bender, A. P., and Olsen, G. W., A survey of the American College of Surgeons hospital based tumor registries.J. AMRA 55:20–23, 1984.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Greenberg, E. R., Colton, T., and Bagne, C., Measurement of cancer incidence in the United States: Sources and uses of data.J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 68:743–750, 1982.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schraub, S., Faine, J., Gignoux, M., et al., Cancer registries: Their interest and practical problems.Effective Health Care 1:205–214, 1983.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wilson, C. M., Status report: The case for a tumor registry.The Cancer Calendar, Fox Chase Cancer Center, October 3, 1980.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bender, A. P., Development of a feasibility study for a statewide cancer surveillance system in Minnesota.Minn. Med. 65:571–573, 1982.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    International Classification of Disease, 9th edition, Clinical Modification, DHHS Pub. No. 80-1260, September 1980.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    International Classification of Disease for Oncology, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1976.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bender, A. P., Jagger, H. G., Fraser, J., et al.,Final report: Feasibility study of a statewide pathologybased cancer surveillance system in Minnesota. Unpublished report, Minnesota Department of Health, 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan P. Bender
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Helen G. Jagger
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • John Fraser
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Wendy Anderson
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Laël C. Gatewood
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Stephen Larkin
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Geary Olsen
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.From the Section of Chronic Disease and Environmental Epidemiology, Minnesota Department of HealthUSA
  2. 2.Health Computer SciencesUniversity of MinnesotaUSA
  3. 3.the Divine Redeemer Memorial HospitalUSA

Personalised recommendations