The National Cancer Database Conforms to the Standardized Framework for Registry and Data Quality.

BACKGROUND: Standardization of procedures for data abstraction by cancer registries is fundamental for cancer surveillance, clinical and policy decision-making, hospital benchmarking, and research efforts. The objective of the current study was to evaluate adherence to the four components (completeness, comparability, timeliness, and validity) defined by Bray and Parkin that determine registries' ability to carry out these activities to the hospital-based National Cancer Database (NCDB). METHODS: Tbis study used data from U.S. Cancer Statistics, the official federal cancer statistics and joint effort between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which includes data from National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) to evaluate NCDB completeness between 2016 and 2020. The study evaluated comparability of case identification and coding procedures. It used Commission on Cancer (CoC) standards from 2022 to assess timeliness and validity. RESULTS: Completeness was demonstrated with a total of 6,828,507 cases identified within the NCDB, representing 73.7% of all cancer cases nationwide. Comparability was followed using standardized and international guidelines on coding and classification procedures. For timeliness, hospital compliance with timely data submission was 92.7%. Validity criteria for re-abstracting, recording, and reliability procedures across hospitals demonstrated 94.2% compliance. Additionally, data validity was shown by a 99.1% compliance with histologic verification standards, a 93.6% assessment of pathologic synoptic reporting, and a 99.1% internal consistency of staff credentials. CONCLUSION: The NCDB is characterized by a high level of case completeness and comparability with uniform standards for data collection, and by hospitals with high compliance, timely data submission, and high rates of compliance with validity standards for registry and data quality evaluation.

Renovating the Commission on Cancer's Quality Measure Portfolio.

IMPORTANCE: Nearly 75% of newly diagnosed cancer patients in the United States will receive care from a hospital that is accredited by the Commission on Cancer (CoC). To support hospitals in their quality assurance efforts, the CoC maintains a portfolio of quality measures to give hospitals compliance data with select best practices for cancer care. As the CoC quality measures have evolved over recent years, many clinicians may lack awareness of the intent and content of the measure portfolio, as well as the mechanism by which new measures originate. OBSERVATIONS: The CoC quality measures are based on data that hospitals submit to the National Cancer Database, allowing the CoC to track compliance with a subset of consensus best practices. Each year, new measures are designed by diverse teams of specialists in the different treatment modalities for the tumor types covered by the portfolio. These proposed measures are then subjected to a range of vetting, refinement, and prioritization steps before being voted into the portfolio by the Quality Assurance and Data Committee of the CoC. Over the past 4 years, the CoC has worked to renovate not only the portfolio but also the process used to create and launch new measures, revise existing measures, and retire obsolete measures. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In the following overview, we outline the current measure process, highlight important changes to the portfolio, and share opportunities to further increase the impact.

Variation in Lymph Node Assessment for Colon Cancer at the Tumor, Surgeon, and Hospital Level.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that tumor- and hospital-level factors, compared with surgeon characteristics, are associated with the majority of variation in the 12 or more lymph nodes (LNs) examined quality standard for resected colon cancer. STUDY DESIGN: A dataset containing an anonymized surgeon identifier was obtained from the National Cancer Database for stage I to III colon cancers from 2010 to 2017. Multilevel logistic regression models were built to assign a proportion of variance in achievement of the 12 LNs standard among the following: (1) tumor factors (demographic and pathologic characteristics), (2) surgeon factors (volume, approach, and margin status), and (3) facility factors (volume and facility type). RESULTS: There were 283,192 unique patient records with 15,358 unique surgeons across 1,258 facilities in our cohort. Achievement of the 12 LNs standard was high (90.3%). Achievement of the 12 LNs standard by surgeon volume was 88.1% and 90.7% in the lowest and highest quartiles, and 86.8% and 91.6% at the facility level for high and low annual volume quartiles, respectively. In multivariate analysis, the following tumor factors were associated with meeting the 12 LNs standard: age, sex, primary tumor site, tumor grade, T stage, and comorbidities (all p < 0.001). Tumor factors were responsible for 71% of the variation in 12 LNs yield, whereas surgeon and facility characteristics contributed 17% and 12%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-nine percent of the variation in the 12 LNs standard is linked to modifiable factors. The majority of variation in this quality metric is associated with non-modifiable tumor-level factors.

The Pacific Northwest Harmful Algal Blooms Bulletin.

A bulletin communicating risk of toxic Pseudo-nitzschia blooms to shellfish harvest along the open coast of the Pacific Northwest region of the United States (the northeast Pacific Ocean spanning Washington and Oregon) is discussed. This Pacific Northwest Harmful Algal Blooms (PNW HAB) Bulletin is designed for shellfish managers with a focus on the razor clam fishery, but may also be informative to managers of the Dungeness crab fishery since domoic acid accumulation in crabs tends to lag accumulation in razor clams by a couple of weeks. The Bulletin complements beach phytoplankton monitoring programs by alerting coastal shellfish managers about adverse environmental conditions that could be conducive to a toxic Pseudo-nitzschia bloom. Beach monitoring programs are effective at determining when toxins have arrived at shellfish beaches, but a risk forecast based on near real-time biophysical information can provide managers with additional forewarning about potential future toxin outbreaks. Here, the approaches taken in constructing the risk forecasts, along with the reasoning and research behind them are presented. Updates to a historical PNW HAB Bulletin are described, as are the current workflow and the individual components of the updated Bulletin. Some successes and failures realized throughout the process are also pointed out for the benefit of the broader community. A self-assessment suggests that when the necessary data sources are available, the PNW HAB Bulletin provides an accurate forecast of risk associated with toxic Pseudo-nitzschia blooms. The Bulletin has proven beneficial to coastal shellfish managers by better informing decisions on sample collection, and harvest limits, openings, extensions, and closures.

Disruption of National Cancer Database Data Models in the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Each year, the National Cancer Database (NCDB) collects and analyzes data used in reports to support research, quality measures, and Commission on Cancer program accreditation. Because data models used to generate these reports have been historically stable, year-to-year variances have been attributed to changes within the cancer program rather than data modeling. Cancer submissions in 2020 were anticipated to be significantly different from prior years because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study involved a validation analysis of the variances in observed to expected 2020 NCDB cancer data in comparison with 2019 and 2018. Observations: The NCDB captured a total of 1 223 221 overall cancer cases in 2020, a decrease of 14.4% (Δ = -206 099) compared with 2019. The early months of the COVID-19 pandemic (March-May 2020) coincided with a nadir of cancer cases in April 2020 that did not recover to overall prepandemic levels through the remainder of 2020. In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the proportion of early-stage disease decreased sharply overall, while the proportion of late-stage disease increased. However, differences in observed to expected stage distribution in 2020 varied by primary disease site. Statistically significant differences in the overall observed to expected proportions of race and ethnicity, sex, insurance type, geographic location, education, and income were identified, but consistent patterns were not evident. Conclusions and Relevance: Historically stable NCDB data models used for research, administrative, and quality improvement purposes were disrupted during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. NCDB data users will need to carefully interpret disease- and program-specific findings for years to come to account for pandemic year aberrations when running models that include 2020.

Evaluating information loss in the National Cancer Database from cases lost to follow-up.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cancer registries must focus on data capture which returns value while reducing resource burden with minimal loss of data. Identifying the optimum length of follow-up data collection for patients with cancer achieves this goal. METHODS: A two-step analysis using entropy calculations to assess information gain for each follow-up year, and second-order differences to compare survival outcomes between the defined follow-up periods and lifetime follow-up. A total of 391 567 adult cases, deidentified in the National Cancer Database and diagnosed in 1989. Comparisons examined a subset of 61 908 lung cancer cases, 48 387 colon and rectal cancer cases, and 64 134 breast cancer cases in adults. A total of 4133 pediatric cases were diagnosed in 1989 examining 1065 leukemia cases and 494 lymphoma cases. RESULTS: Annual increases in information gain fell below 1% after 16 years of follow-up for adult cases and 9 years for pediatric cases. Comparison of second-order differences showed 62% of the comparisons were similar between 15 years and lifetime follow-up when examining restricted mean survival time. In addition, 90% of the comparisons were statistically similar when comparing hazard ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Survival analysis using 15 years postdiagnosis follow-up showed minimal differences in information gain compared to lifetime follow-up.

Pelagic calcifiers face increased mortality and habitat loss with warming and ocean acidification.

Global change is impacting the oceans in an unprecedented way, and multiple lines of evidence suggest that species distributions are changing in space and time. There is increasing evidence that multiple environmental stressors act together to constrain species habitat more than expected from warming alone. Here, we conducted a comprehensive study of how temperature and aragonite saturation state act together to limit Limacina helicina, globally distributed pteropods that are ecologically important pelagic calcifiers and an indicator species for ocean change. We co-validated three different approaches to evaluate the impact of ocean warming and acidification (OWA) on the survival and distribution of this species in the California Current Ecosystem. First, we used colocated physical, chemical, and biological data from three large-scale west coast cruises and regional time series; second, we conducted multifactorial experimental incubations to evaluate how OWA impacts pteropod survival; and third, we validated the relationships we found against global distributions of pteropods and carbonate chemistry. OWA experimental work revealed mortality increases under OWA, while regional habitat suitability indices and global distributions of L. helicina suggest that a multi-stressor framework is essential for understanding pteropod distributions. In California Current Ecosystem habitats, where pteropods are living close to their thermal maximum already, additional warming and acidification through unabated fossil fuel emissions (RCP 8.5) are expected to dramatically reduce habitat suitability.

Twenty-Five Years of Cancer Follow-Up; Is the Data Worth the Effort?

BACKGROUND: Substantial resources are dedicated to long-term follow-up within cancer registries; however, the completeness of these data is poorly characterized. Our objectives were to quantify long-term cancer follow-up data completeness and the effort required to collect these data using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). METHODS: To quantify data completeness, patients diagnosed with cancer in 1989 were identified in the NCDB and loss to follow-up rates were assessed for 25 years after diagnosis. To quantify data collection effort, patients diagnosed from 1989 to 2014 who were alive and eligible for follow-up in 2014 were identified and the effort to perform patient follow-up was obtained via a survey of tumor registrars. The effort to perform follow-up beyond various intervals after diagnosis was calculated. RESULTS: In total, 484,201 patients at 958 hospitals were diagnosed with cancer in 1989. After 5 years, 6.5% of patients were lost to follow-up (13.1% of living patients), 50.3% were deceased, and 43.2% had ongoing follow-up. After 15 years, 22.9% were lost to follow-up (68.7% of living patients), 66.7% were deceased, and 10.5% had ongoing follow-up. By 25 years, loss to follow-up increased to 28.6% (93.7% of living patients), 69.5% were deceased, and 1.9% had ongoing follow-up. In 2014, 522,838 h were spent performing follow-up for 2,091,353 patients at 1456 hospitals who were >15 years from their initial cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: While 5-year follow-up is excellent in the NCDB, loss to follow-up increases over time. The impact of curtailing data collection is under investigation and follow-up duration requirements will be re-evaluated.

Oncology team perspectives on distress screening: a multisite study of a well-established use of patient-reported outcomes for clinical assessment.

PURPOSE: Cancer care team attitudes towards distress screening are key to its success and sustainability. Previous qualitative research has interviewed staff mostly around the startup phase. We evaluate oncology teams' perspectives on psychosocial distress screening, including perceived strengths and challenges, in settings where it has been operational for years. METHODS: We conducted, transcribed, and analyzed semi-structured interviews with 71 cancer care team members (e.g., MDs, RNs, MSWs) at 18 Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer programs including those serving underrepresented populations. RESULTS: Strengths of distress screening identified by participants included identifying patient needs and testing provider assumptions. Staff indicated it improved patient-provider communication and other aspects of care. Challenges to distress screening included patient barriers (e.g., respondent burden) and lack of electronic system interoperability. Participants expressed the strengths of distress screening (n = 291) more than challenges (n = 86). Suggested improvements included use of technology to collect data, report results, and make referrals; complete screenings prior to appointments; longitudinal assessment; additional staff training; and improve resources to address patient needs. CONCLUSION: Cancer care team members' perspectives on well-established distress screening programs largely replicate findings of previous studies focusing on the startup phase, but there are important differences: team members expressed more strengths than challenges, suggesting a positive attitude. While our sample described many challenges described previously, they did not indicate challenges with scoring and interpreting the distress screening questionnaire. The differences in attitudes expressed in response to mature versus startup implementations provide important insights to inform efforts to sustain and optimize distress screening.

Survival After Cancer Treatment at Top-Ranked US Cancer Hospitals vs Affiliates of Top-Ranked Cancer Hospitals.

Importance: Hospital networks formed around top-ranked cancer hospitals represent an opportunity to optimize complex cancer care in the community. Objective: To compare the short- and long-term survival after complex cancer treatment at top-ranked cancer hospitals and the affiliates of top-ranked hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted using data from the unabridged version of the National Cancer Database. Included patients were individuals 18 years or older who underwent surgical treatment for esophageal, gastric, lung, pancreatic, colorectal, or bladder cancer diagnosed between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016. Patient outcomes after complex surgical procedures for cancer at top-ranked cancer hospitals (as ranked in top 50 by US News and World Report) were compared with outcomes at affiliates of top-ranked cancer hospitals (affiliation listed in American Hospitals Association survey and confirmed by search of internet presence). Data were analyzed from July through December 2019. Exposures: Undergoing complex cancer treatment at a top-ranked cancer hospital or an affiliated hospital. Main Outcomes and Measures: The association of affiliate status with short-term survival (ie, 90-day mortality) was compared using logistic regression, and the association of affiliate status with long-term survival was compared using time-to-event models, adjusting for patient demographic, payer, clinical, and treatment factors. Results: Among 119 834 patients who underwent surgical treatment for cancer, 79 981 patients (66.7%) were treated at top-ranked cancer hospitals (median [interquartile range] age, 66 [58-74] years; 40 910 [54.9%] men) and 39 853 patients (33.3%) were treated at affiliate hospitals (median [interquartile range] age, 69 [60-77] years; 19 004 [50.0%] men). In a pooled analysis of all cancer types, adjusted perioperative mortality within 90 days of surgical treatment was higher at affiliate hospitals compared with top-ranked hospitals (odds ratio, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.49-1.89]; P < .001). Adjusted long-term survival following cancer treatment at affiliate hospitals was only 77% that of top-ranked hospitals (time ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.72-0.83]; P < .001). The survival advantage was not fully explained by differences in annual surgical volume, with both long- and short-term survival remaining superior at top-ranked hospitals even after models were adjusted for volume. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that short- and long-term survival after complex cancer treatment were superior at top-ranked hospitals compared with affiliates of top-ranked hospitals. Further study of cancer care within top-ranked cancer networks could reveal collaborative opportunities to improve survival across a broad contingent of the US population.

Predicting mental health problems in adolescence using machine learning techniques.

BACKGROUND: Predicting which children will go on to develop mental health symptoms as adolescents is critical for early intervention and preventing future, severe negative outcomes. Although many aspects of a child's life, personality, and symptoms have been flagged as indicators, there is currently no model created to screen the general population for the risk of developing mental health problems. Additionally, the advent of machine learning techniques represents an exciting way to potentially improve upon the standard prediction modelling technique, logistic regression. Therefore, we aimed to I.) develop a model that can predict mental health problems in mid-adolescence II.) investigate if machine learning techniques (random forest, support vector machines, neural network, and XGBoost) will outperform logistic regression. METHODS: In 7,638 twins from the Child and Adolescent Twin Study in Sweden we used 474 predictors derived from parental report and register data. The outcome, mental health problems, was determined by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Model performance was determined by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: Although model performance varied somewhat, the confidence interval overlapped for each model indicating non-significant superiority for the random forest model (AUC = 0.739, 95% CI 0.708-0.769), followed closely by support vector machines (AUC = 0.735, 95% CI 0.707-0.764). CONCLUSION: Ultimately, our top performing model would not be suitable for clinical use, however it lays important groundwork for future models seeking to predict general mental health outcomes. Future studies should make use of parent-rated assessments when possible. Additionally, it may not be necessary for similar studies to forgo logistic regression in favor of other more complex methods.

Circumferential Resection Margin as a Hospital Quality Assessment Tool for Rectal Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Circumferential resection margin (CRM) status is an important predictor of outcomes after rectal cancer operation, and is influenced not only by operative technique, but also by incorporation of a multidisciplinary treatment strategy. This study sought to develop a risk-adjusted quality metric based on CRM status to assess hospital-level performance for rectal cancer operation. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of 58,374 patients with resected stage I to III rectal cancer within 1,303 hospitals who were identified from the National Cancer Database (2010 to 2015). The number of observed cases with a positive CRM (≤ 1 mm) was divided by the risk-adjusted expected number of cases with positive CRM to form the observed-to-expected (O/E) ratio. Secondary endpoint was overall survival. RESULTS: The overall rate of CRM positivity was 15.9%. Based on the O/E ratio for 1,139 hospitals, 147 (12.9%) and 103 (9.0%) were significantly worse and better performers, respectively. The majority of hospitals (n = 570) performed as expected. Positive CRMs using criteria of 0 mm and 0.1 to 1 mm were associated with a significantly shorter 5-year overall survival of 49% and 63.5% (hazard ratio 1.67; 95% CI, 1.57 to 1.76 and hazard ratio 1.19; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.26) than negative CRM > 1 mm of 74.1% (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CRM-based O/E ratio is a robust hospital-based quality measure for rectal cancer operation. It allows facilities to compare their performance with that of centers of similar characteristics and helps identify underperforming, at-risk, and high-performing centers. National quality-improvement initiatives for rectal cancer should focus on ensuring high-quality data collection and providing ready access to risk-adjusted comparative metrics.

Evaluating the role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with DCIS treated with breast conserving surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The role of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for patients with ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) is limited given the rarity of nodal metastasis in non-invasive disease. Although SLNB is typically a safe procedure, there are potential complications and associated costs. The purpose of this study is to assess national surgical practice patterns and clinical outcomes with respect to the use of SLNB for DCIS in patients undergoing breast conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS: Case-level data from the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was assessed to identify adult patients ≥ 18 with DCIS, who underwent BCS and SLNB. Patient demographics and hospital characteristics were grouped for analytic purposes. A multivariate analysis was performed for patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 15,422 patients with DCIS undergoing BCS in 2015, of which 2,698 (18%) underwent SLNB. A multivariate analysis demonstrated a significant association between greater frequency of SLNB in patients age range of 60-69, receipt of care at a community facility, and higher nuclear grade DCIS. Positive sentinel nodes metastasis was identified in 0.9% patients undergoing BCS and SLNB for DCIS. CONCLUSION: The role of SLNB in patients with DCIS undergoing BCS is limited and does not routinely provide meaningful information or benefit to clinical management. Despite this, nearly one in five patients undergoing BCS for DCIS had lymph node sampling performed. Given the potential increased morbidity and financial implications, this finding represents an opportunity for further education and improvement in patient selection for SLNB.

National Cancer Database: The Past, Present, and Future of the Cancer Registry and Its Efforts to Improve the Quality of Cancer Care.

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) continues to evolve to improve the care of the cancer patient. Over the last 30 years, the NCDB has compiled nearly 40 million patient records submitted by over 1500 hospitals across the country. Addressing new challenges, the NCDB is transitioning to ensure data flow is more timely and data collection more efficient. The Rapid Cancer Reporting System will be a significant step toward bringing data abstraction into real time and providing a quality data platform to support the information needs of high-quality clinical practice.

Perceptions of Patients With Breast and Colon Cancer of the Management of Cancer-Related Pain, Fatigue, and Emotional Distress in Community Oncology.

PURPOSE: Pain, fatigue, and distress are common among patients with cancer but are often underassessed and undertreated. We examine the prevalence of pain, fatigue, and emotional distress among patients with cancer, as well as patient perceptions of the symptom care they received. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventeen Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer centers across the United States sampled patients with local/regional breast (82%) or colon (18%) cancer. We received 2,487 completed surveys (61% response rate). RESULTS: Of patients, 76%, 78%, and 59% reported talking to a clinician about pain, fatigue, and distress, respectively, and 70%, 61%, and 54% reported receiving advice. Sixty-one percent of patients experienced pain, 74% fatigue, and 46% distress. Among those patients experiencing each symptom, 58% reported getting the help they wanted for pain, 40% for fatigue, and 45% for distress. Multilevel logistic regression models revealed that patients experiencing symptoms were significantly more likely to have talked about and received advice on coping with these symptoms. In addition, patients who were receiving or recently completed curative treatment reported more symptoms and better symptom care than did those who were further in time from curative treatment. CONCLUSION: In our sample, 30% to 50% of patients with cancer in community cancer centers did not report discussing, getting advice, or receiving desired help for pain, fatigue, or emotional distress. This finding suggests that there is room for improvement in the management of these three common cancer-related symptoms. Higher proportions of talk and advice among those experiencing symptoms imply that many discussions may be patient initiated. Lower rates of talk and advice among those who are further in time from treatment suggest the need for more assessment among longer-term survivors, many of whom continue to experience these symptoms. These findings seem to be especially important given the high prevalence of these symptoms in our sample.

Compliance with Cancer Quality Measures Over Time and Their Association with Survival Outcomes: The Commission on Cancer's Experience with the Quality Measure Requiring at Least 12 Regional Lymph Nodes to be Removed and Analyzed with Colon Cancer Resections.

BACKGROUND: Many quality measures in cancer care are process measures. The rates of compliance for these measures over time have not been well described, and the relationships between measure compliance and survival are not well understood. METHODS: The National Cancer Database, representing cancer registry data from approximately 1500 Commission on Cancer (CoC) cancer programs, was queried to determine the rates of compliance, with the CoC's colon cancer quality measure requiring 12 regional lymph nodes be removed at resection. Data were assessed in 2003, before the measure was reported to programs, through 2015. Measure compliance and risk-adjusted survival were examined by hospital type. RESULTS: From 2003 to 2015, 544,018 cases of colon cancer were analyzed for number of nodes removed. In 2003, compliance was 52.8% and National Cancer Institute (NCI) centers had the highest compliance rate (69.0%), followed by academic cancer centers (61.9%), comprehensive community hospitals (50.9%), and community hospitals (44.0%). Between 2003 and 2015, compliance improved for all hospital types, although differences remained. Risk-adjusted survival in 2009 was better at NCI centers [hazard ratio (HR) 0.76] than at academic cancer centers (HR 0.90), which had better survivals than comprehensive community programs (HR 0.93) when compared with patients treated at community hospitals. CONCLUSION: After introduction of this quality measure, performance at CoC-accredited hospitals improved over the subsequent 13 years, and survival by hospital type paralleled measure compliance by hospital type. This demonstrated measurement may be associated with improvements in performance, and that there are differences in performance and outcome by hospital type.

Incident Cases Captured in the National Cancer Database Compared with Those in U.S. Population Based Central Cancer Registries in 2012-2014.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) is a hospital-based cancer registry that includes diagnostic, staging, treatment, and outcomes data for newly diagnosed cancer patients in the United States. The NCDB data include 31 million records for patients diagnosed between 1985-2015. A Participant User File based on a subset of these data has been available to researchers at facilities accredited by the Commission on Cancer since 2010. This study aimed to compare the number of incident cancer cases in the NCDB with a national population cancer registry. METHODS: Incident cancer cases in the NCDB in 2012-2014 were compared with the number of cancer cases in the United States Cancer Statistics data for the 2012-2014 diagnosis years. Comparisons were made by primary site and other factors. RESULTS: In 2012-2014, the NCDB captured 72% of the cancer cases in the United States, which was slightly higher than the 67% and 69% reported respectively in two prior assessments. Among the top 10 major cancer sites, the highest coverage (80%) was found for breast cancer, and the lowest was found for melanoma of the skin (52%) and prostate (58%). Colon, bladder, and kidney and renal pelvis cancers had relatively high coverage of 71%, 70% and 78%, respectively, whereas lung and bronchus had slightly lower coverage (65%). CONCLUSIONS: The NCDB coverage of U.S. cancer cases has remained relatively high (72%), but differences remain by cancer site and other factors that should be taken into account by users of the NCDB data.

Survival As a Quality Metric of Cancer Care: Use of the National Cancer Data Base to Assess Hospital Performance.

PURPOSE: Survival is considered an important indicator of the quality of cancer care, but the validity of different methodologies to measure comparative survival rates is less well understood. We explored whether the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) could serve as a source of unadjusted and risk-adjusted cancer survival data and whether these data could be used as quality indicators for individual hospitals or in the aggregate by hospital type. METHODS: The NCDB, an aggregate of > 1,500 hospital cancer registries, was queried to analyze unadjusted and risk-adjusted hazards of death for patients with stage III breast cancer (n = 116,787) and stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 252,392). Data were analyzed at the individual hospital level and by hospital type. RESULTS: At the hospital level, after risk adjustment, few hospitals had comparative risk-adjusted survival rates that were statistically better or worse. By hospital type, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers had risk-adjusted survival ratios that were statistically significantly better than those of academic cancer centers and community hospitals. CONCLUSION: Using the NCDB as the data source, survival rates for patients with stage III breast cancer and stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer were statistically better at National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers when compared with other hospital types. Compared with academic hospitals, risk-adjusted survival was lower in community hospitals. At the individual hospital level, after risk adjustment, few hospitals were shown to have statistically better or worse survival, suggesting that, using NCDB data, survival may not be a good metric to determine relative quality of cancer care at this level.