Calling for improved quality in the registration of traditional Chinese medicine during the public health emergency: a survey of trial registries for COVID-19, H1N1, and SARS.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the registration quality of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) clinical trials for COVID-19, H1N1, and SARS. METHOD: We searched for clinical trial registrations of TCM in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) on April 30, 2020. The registration quality assessment is based on the WHO Trial Registration Data Set (Version 1.3.1) and extra items for TCM information, including TCM background, theoretical origin, specific diagnosis criteria, description of intervention, and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 136 records were examined, including 129 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (COVID-19) and 7 H1N1 influenza (H1N1) patients. The deficiencies in the registration of TCM clinical trials (CTs) mainly focus on a low percentage reporting detailed information about interventions (46.6%), primary outcome(s) (37.7%), and key secondary outcome(s) (18.4%) and a lack of summary result (0%). For the TCM items, none of the clinical trial registrations reported the TCM background and rationale; only 6.6% provided the TCM diagnosis criteria or a description of the TCM intervention; and 27.9% provided TCM outcome(s). CONCLUSION: Overall, although the number of registrations of TCM CTs increased, the registration quality was low. The registration quality of TCM CTs should be improved by more detailed reporting of interventions and outcomes, TCM-specific information, and sharing of the result data.

Validation of the Enriching New-Onset Diabetes for Pancreatic Cancer Model in a Diverse and Integrated Healthcare Setting.

BACKGROUND: The risk of pancreatic cancer is elevated among people with new-onset diabetes (NOD). Based on Rochester Epidemiology Project Data, the Enriching New-Onset Diabetes for Pancreatic Cancer (END-PAC) model was developed and validated. AIMS: We validated the END-PAC model in a cohort of patients with NOD using retrospectively collected data from a large integrated health maintenance organization. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of patients between 50 and 84 years of age meeting the criteria for NOD in 2010-2014 was identified. Each patient was assigned a risk score (< 1: low risk; 1-2: intermediate risk; ≥ 3: high risk) based on the values of the predictors specified in the END-PAC model. Patients who developed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) within 3 years were identified using the Cancer Registry and California State Death files. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were estimated. RESULTS: Out of the 13,947 NOD patients who were assigned a risk score, 99 developed PDAC in 3 years (0.7%). Of the 3038 patients who had a high risk, 62 (2.0%) developed PDAC in 3 years. The risk increased to 3.0% in white patients with a high risk. The AUC was 0.75. At the 3+ threshold, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 62.6%, 78.5%, 2.0%, and 99.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It is critical that prediction models are validated before they are implemented in various populations and clinical settings. More efforts are needed to develop screening strategies most appropriate for patients with NOD in real-world settings.

Creating a Program to Support Registering and Reporting Clinical Trials at Johns Hopkins University.

PROBLEM: The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) require that many clinical trials register and report results on ClinicalTrials.gov. Noncompliance with these policies denies research participants and scientists access to potentially relevant findings and could lead to monetary penalties or loss of funding. After discovering hundreds of potentially noncompliant trials affiliated with the institution, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (JHUSOM) sought to develop a program to support research teams with registration and reporting requirements. APPROACH: JHUSOM conducted a baseline assessment of institutional compliance in 2015, launched the ClinicalTrials.gov Program in June 2016, and expanded the program to the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center in April 2018. The program is innovative in its comprehensive approach, and it was among the first to bring a large number of trials into compliance. OUTCOMES: From September 2015 to September 2020, JHUSOM brought completed and ongoing trials into compliance with FDAAA and NIH policies and maintained almost perfect compliance for new trials. During this period, the proportion of trials potentially noncompliant with the FDAAA decreased from 44% (339/774) to 2% (32/1,304). NEXT STEPS: JHUSOM continues to develop and evaluate tools and procedures that facilitate trial registration and results reporting. In collaboration with other academic medical centers, JHUSOM plans to share resources and to identify and disseminate best practices. This report identifies practical lessons for institutions that might develop similar programs.

Evaluation of the Use of Cancer Registry Data for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Importance: Researchers often analyze cancer registry data to assess for differences in survival among cancer treatments. However, the retrospective, nonrandomized design of these analyses raises questions about study validity. Objective: To examine the extent to which comparative effectiveness analyses using observational cancer registry data produce results concordant with those of randomized clinical trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this comparative effectiveness study, a total of 141 randomized clinical trials referenced in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines for 8 common solid tumor types were identified. Data on participants within the National Cancer Database (NCDB) diagnosed between 2004 and 2014, matching the eligibility criteria of the randomized clinical trial, were obtained. The present study was conducted from August 1, 2017, to September 10, 2019. The trials included 85 118 patients, and the corresponding NCDB analyses included 1 344 536 patients. Three Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival, including univariable, multivariable, and propensity score-adjusted models. Multivariable and propensity score analyses controlled for potential confounders, including demographic, comorbidity, clinical, treatment, and tumor-related variables. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was concordance between the results of randomized clinical trials and observational cancer registry data. Hazard ratios with an NCDB analysis were considered concordant if the NDCB HR fell within the 95% CI of the randomized clinical trial HR. An NCDB analysis was considered concordant if both the NCDB and clinical trial P values for survival were nonsignificant (P ≥ .05) or if they were both significant (P < .05) with survival favoring the same treatment arm in the NCDB and in the randomized clinical trial. Results: Analyses using the NCDB-produced HRs for survival were concordant with those of 141 randomized clinical trials in 79 univariable analyses (56%), 98 multivariable analyses (70%), and 90 propensity score models (64%). The NCDB analyses produced P values concordant with randomized clinical trials in 58 univariable analyses (41%), 65 multivariable analyses (46%), and 63 propensity score models (45%). No clinical trial characteristics were associated with concordance between NCDB analyses and randomized clinical trials, including disease site, type of clinical intervention, or severity of cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that comparative effectiveness research using cancer registry data often produces survival outcomes discordant with those of randomized clinical trial data. These findings may help provide context for clinicians and policy makers interpreting observational comparative effectiveness research in oncology.

Completeness of ANZACS-QI Cardiac Implanted DEVICE Registry and agreement with national datasets: ANZACS-QI 30.

AIMS: The ANZACS-QI Cardiac Implanted Device Registry (ANZACS-QI DEVICE) collects data on cardiac implantable electronic devices inserted in New Zealand. We evaluated completeness of data capture and quality of ANZACS-QI DEVICE in 2016. METHODS: Complete datasets within ANZACS-QI DEVICE, comprising DEVICE-PPM (permanent pacemakers) and DEVICE-ICD (implantable cardioverter defibrillators), from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016 were linked with the National Hospitalisation dataset (all New Zealand public hospital admissions). The total number of implants included procedures captured in either dataset. Variables assessed included age, gender, ethnicity, procedure type, implanting centre, admission and procedure date. RESULTS: DEVICE-PPM captured 85.9% of all PPM procedures (n=2,512). This was similar regardless of age, sex and ethnicity. In the 84.4% of procedures captured in both datasets, agreement was >97% for all variables except admission date (90.1%). DEVICE-ICD captured 81.3% of all ICD procedures (n=690). Capture was similar across age, sex and ethnicity groups. In the 76.8% of procedures captured in both datasets, agreement was >96% for all variables except admission date (90.6%). CONCLUSION: The ANZACS-QI DEVICE registry had a good capture rate and excellent agreement with the national dataset. This high concordance supports the use of both datasets for future research.

Quality assessment of clinical trial registration with traditional Chinese medicine in WHO registries.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the registration quality of clinical trials (CTs) with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and identify the common problems if any. METHODS: The ICTRP database was searched for all TCM CTs that were registered up to 31 December 2017. Registered information of each trial was collected from specific registry involved in ICTRP through hyperlink. The primary analysis was to assess the reporting quality of registered trials with TCM interventions, which is based on the minimum 20 items of WHO Trial Registration Data Set (TRDS, V.1.2.1) plus optional additional three items recommended by ICTRP, and some specific items for TCM information (including TCM intervention, diagnosis, outcome and rationale). Descriptive statistics were additionally used to analyse the baseline characteristics of TCM trial registrations. RESULTS: A total of 3339 records in 15 registries were examined. The number of TCM registered trials has increased rapidly after the requirement of mandatory trial registration proposed by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors on 1 July 2005, and the top two registries were Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and ClincialTrials.gov. Of 3339 trials, 61% were prospective registration and 12.8% shared resultant publications. There were 2955 interventional trials but none of them had a 100% reporting rate of the minimum 20 items and additional three items. The reporting quality of these 23 items was not optimal due to 11 of them had a lower reporting rate (<65%). For TCM details, 49.2% lacked information on description of TCM intervention(s), 85.9% did not contain TCM diagnosis criteria, 92.6% did not use TCM outcome(s) and 67.1% lacked information on TCM background and rationale. CONCLUSION: The registration quality of TCM CTs should be improved by prospective registration, full completion of WHO TRDS, full reporting of TCM information and results sharing. Further full set of trial registration items for TCM trials should be developed thus to standardise the content of TCM trial registration.

TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce: consensus on how and when to measure the core dataset for atopic eczema treatment research registries.

BACKGROUND: Comparative, real-life and long-term evidence on the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in moderate-to-severe atopic eczema (AE) is limited. Such data must come from well-designed prospective patient registries. Standardization of data collection is needed for direct comparisons and data pooling. OBJECTIVES: To reach a consensus on how and when to measure the previously defined domain items of the TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce core dataset for research registries for paediatric and adult patients with AE. METHODS: Proposals for the measurement instruments were based on recommendations of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative, the existing AE database of TREATgermany, systematic reviews of the literature and expert opinions. The proposals were discussed at three face-to-face consensus meetings, one teleconference and via e-mail. The frequency of follow-up visits was determined by an expert survey. RESULTS: A total of 16 experts from seven countries participated in the 'how to measure' consensus process and 12 external experts were consulted. A consensus was reached for all domain items on how they should be measured by assigning measurement instruments. A minimum follow-up frequency of initially 4 weeks after commencing treatment, then every 3 months while on treatment and every 6 months while off treatment was defined. CONCLUSIONS: This core dataset for national AE research registries will aid in the comparability and pooling of data across centres and country borders, and enables international collaboration to assess the long-term effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy used in patients with AE. What's already known about this topic? Comparable, real-life and long-term data on the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in patients with atopic eczema (AE) are needed. There is a high diversity of outcomes and instruments used in AE research, which require harmonization to enhance comparability and allow data pooling. What does this study add? Our taskforce has reached international consensus on how and when to measure core domain items for national AE research registries. This core dataset is now available for use by researchers worldwide and will aid in the collection of unified data. What are the clinical implications of this work? The data collected through this core dataset will help to gain better insights into the long-term effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in AE and will provide important information for clinical practice. Standardization of such data collection at the national level will also allow direct data comparisons and pooling across country borders (e.g. in the analysis of treatment-related adverse events that require large patient numbers).

Assessing the methodological and reporting quality of network meta-analyses in Chinese medicine.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of network meta-analyses (NMAs) in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) have been published recently, but the quality of them was lack of assessment. This study aims to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of NMAs in TCM. METHODS: Six electronic databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) from inception to January 2018, were searched. NMAs of TCM were included. A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and the PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions (PRISMA-NMA) were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the included NMAs. RESULTS: A total of 40 NMAs, including 2535 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), were included. They were published between December 2012 and November 2017. The median score and interquartile range of methodological and reporting quality was 7 (6-8) and 22 (19.1-27.1). Serious methodological flaws existed in the following aspects: the status of publication (22.5%), a list of studies provided (0%), assessment of publication bias (37.5%), and conflicts of interest (12.5%). Several items need to be improved in reporting, especially for Protocol and registration (2.5%), Data items (22.5%), Risk of bias across studies (Methods section) (37.5%), Results of individual studies (27.5%), Risk of bias across studies (Results section) (40%), Results of additional analyses (35%), and Funding (15%). CONCLUSIONS: The methodological and reporting quality of NMAs in TCM is moderate. Identified shortcomings of published NMAs should be taken into consideration in further trainings of authors and editors of NMAs in TCM. Future researchers should be encouraged to apply PRISMA-NMA, and a recognized tool for the assessment of NMA methodology was wanted.

The Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Registry: Driving quality and demonstrating compliance.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update on the status of provider participation in the US Wound Registry (USWR) and its specialty registry the Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Registry (HBOTR), which provide much-needed national benchmarking and quality measurement services for hyperbaric medicine. METHODS: Providers can meet many requirements of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and simultaneously participate in the HBOTR by transmitting Continuity of Care Documents (CCDs) directly from their certified electronic health record (EHR) or by reporting hyperbaric quality measures, the specifications for which are available free of charge for download from the registry website as electronic clinical quality measures for installation into any certified EHR. Computerized systems parse the structured data transmitted to the USWR. Patients undergoing hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) therapy are allocated to the HBOTR and stored in that specialty registry database. The data can be queried for benchmarking, quality reporting, public policy, or specialized data projects. RESULTS: Since January 2012, 917,758 clinic visits have captured the data of 199,158 patients in the USWR, 3,697 of whom underwent HBO2 therapy. Among 27,404 patients with 62,843 diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) captured, 9,908 DFUs (15.7%) were treated with HBO2 therapy. Between January 2016 and September 2018, the benchmark rate for the 1,000 DFUs treated with HBO2 was 7.3%, with an average of 28 treatments per patient. There are 2,100 providers who report data to the USWR by transmitting CCDs from their EHR and 688 who submit quality measure data, 300 (43.6%) of whom transmit HBO2 quality data.

Implementation of a diabetes in pregnancy clinical register in a complex setting: Findings from a process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Rates of diabetes in pregnancy are disproportionately higher among Aboriginal than non-Aboriginal women in Australia. Additional challenges are posed by the context of Aboriginal health including remoteness and disadvantage. A clinical register was established in 2011 to improve care coordination, and as an epidemiological and quality assurance tool. This paper presents results from a process evaluation identifying what worked well, persisting challenges and opportunities for improvement. METHODS: Clinical register data were compared to the Northern Territory Midwives Data Collection. A cross-sectional survey of 113 health professionals across the region was also conducted in 2016 to assess use and value of the register; and five focus groups (49 healthcare professionals) documented improvements to models of care. RESULTS: From January 2012 to December 2015, 1,410 women were referred to the register, 48% of whom were Aboriginal. In 2014, women on the register represented 75% of those on the Midwives Data Collection for Aboriginal women with gestational diabetes and 100% for Aboriginal women with pre-existing diabetes. Since commencement of the register, an 80% increase in reported prevalence of gestational diabetes among Aboriginal women in the Midwives Data Collection occurred (2011-2013), prior to adoption of new diagnostic criteria (2014). As most women met both diagnostic criteria (81% in 2012 and 74% in 2015) it is unlikely that the changes in criteria contributed to this increase. Over half (57%) of survey respondents reported improvement in knowledge of the epidemiology of diabetes in pregnancy since establishment of the register. However, only 32% of survey respondents thought that the register improved care-coordination. The need for improved integration and awareness to increase use was also highlighted. CONCLUSION: Although the register has not been reported to improve care coordination, it has contributed to increased reported prevalence of gestational diabetes among high risk Aboriginal women, in a routinely collected jurisdiction-wide pregnancy dataset. It has therefore contributed to an improved understanding of epidemiology and disease burden and may in future contribute to improved management and outcomes. Regions with similar challenges in context and high risk populations for diabetes in pregnancy may benefit from this experience of implementing a register.

Designing and Implementing an Electronic Patient Registry to Improve Warfarin Monitoring in the Ambulatory Setting.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin requires individualized dosing and monitoring in the ambulatory setting for protection against thromboembolic disease. Yet in multiple settings, patients spend upwards of 30% of time outside the therapeutic range, subjecting them to an increased risk of adverse events. At an urban, publicly funded clinic, the electronic health record (EHR) would not support integration with extant warfarin management software, which led to the creation and implementation of an electronic patient registry and a complementary team-based work flow to provide real-time health-system-level data for warfarin patients. METHODS: Creation of the registry, which began in August 2014, entailed use of an existing platform, which could interface with the outpatient EHR. The registry was designed to help ensure regular testing and monitoring of patients while enabling identification of patients and subpopulations with suboptimal management. The work flow used for the clinic's warfarin patients was also redesigned. An assessment indicated that the registry identified 341 (96%) of 357 patients actively seen in the clinic. RESULTS: For the cohort of the 357 patients in the registry, the no-show rate decreased from 31% (preimplementation, August 2014-December 2014) to 21% (postimplementation, January 2015-November 2015). The ratio of visits to no-shows increased from 2.3 to 4.0 visits. CONCLUSION: Design and implementation of an electronic registry in conjunction with a complementary work flow established an active tracking system that improved treatment monitoring for patients on anticoagulation therapy. Registry creation also facilitated assessment of the quality of care and laid the groundwork for ongoing evaluation and quality improvement efforts.

North American Population-Based Validation of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Practice Guideline Recommendation of Pelvic Lymphadenectomy in Contemporary Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend a pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) if a nomogram predicted risk of lymph node invasion (LNI) is ≥2%. We examined this and other thresholds, including nomogram validation. METHODS: We examined records of 26,713 patients treated with RP and PLND between 2010 and 2013, within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Nomogram thresholds of 2-5% were tested and external validation was performed. RESULTS: LNI was recorded in 4.7% of patients. Nomogram accuracy was 80.4% and maintained minimum accuracy of 75.6% in subgroup analyses, according to age, race, and nodal yield >10. With the NCCN recommended 2% nomogram threshold, PLND could be avoided in 22.3% of patients at the expense of missing 3.0% of individuals with LNI. Alternative thresholds of 3%, 4%, and 5% yielded respective PLND avoidance rates of 60.4%, 71.0%, and 79.8% at the expense of missing 17.8%, 27.2%, and 36.6% of patients with LNI. NCCN cut-off recommendation was best satisfied with a threshold of <2.6%, at which PLND could be avoided in 13,234 patients (49.5%) versus missing 141 patients with LNI (11.2%). CONCLUSION: NCCN LNI nomogram remains accurate in contemporary patients. However, the 2% threshold appears to be too strict, since only 22.3% of PLNDs can be avoided, instead of the stipulated 47.7%. The optimal 2.6% threshold allows a higher rate of PLND avoidance (49.5%), at the cost of 11.2% missed instances of LNI, as recommended by NCCN guidelines. PATIENT SUMMARY. External validation in contemporary SEER prostate cancer patients showed that the NCCN nomogram remains accurate for predicting lymph node invasion and seems to be optimal at an alternative 2.6% threshold, with best ratio of avoided pelvic lymph node dissections (49.5%) and missed LNIs (11.2%), as recommended by NCCN guideline. Prostate 77:542-548, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Spine Tango registry data collection in a conservative spinal service: a feasibility study.

PURPOSE: The study reports the feasibility of implementing routine registry data collection and sustaining a high rate of data capture within a secondary care spinal osteopathy service, using the Spine Tango Conservative registry data collection tool (STC) with multiple patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Neck Disability Index (NDI), COMI Low Back Conservative, COMI Neck Conservative and EQ-5D-3L. METHODS: Data collection rates were studied during the implementation of a registry data collection project from October 2011 to June 2015. The primary outcome was completion rate of PROMs and the STC, measured as a percentage of total expected data collection. Descriptive statistics were used to illustrate completion rates by year, age group, sex, region of spinal complaint, baseline ODI or NDI score and number of PROMs required to complete the data set. RESULTS: Data were collected on 349 patients. Overall data collection rates increased from 54.8 % in January-June 2012 to 90.4 % in January-June 2015. The percentage of fully completed data sets was lower in the patient group required to complete 4-5 PROMs at each data collection point (15.4 %) than it was in the patient group required to complete 2-3 PROMs (37.4 %). Other comparisons showed no clear patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis shows that a high rate of data capture can be sustained in a clinical setting using the STC and multiple PROMs. However, increasing the burden of data collection on patients and practitioners was associated with increased data loss. We describe measures taken to reduce data loss in the future and to increase the efficiency of the data collection project.

Estimating the Completeness of Lung Cancer Registry in Ardabil, Iran with a Three-Source Capture-Recapture Method.

Cancer registration is an important component of a comprehensive cancer control program, providing timely data and information for research and administrative use. Capture-recapture methods have been used as tools to investigate completeness of cancer registry data. This study aimed to estimate the completeness of lung cancer cases registered in Ardabil Population Based Cancer Registry (APBCR) with a three-source capture-recapture method. Data for all new cases of lung cancer reported by three sources (pathology reports, death certificates, and medical records) to APBCR for 2006 and 2008 were obtained. Duplicate cases shared among the three sources were identified based on similarity of first name, last name and father's names. A log-linear model was used to estimate number of missed cases and to control for dependency among sources. A total of 218 new cases of lung cancer was reported by three sources after removing duplicates. The estimated completeness calculated by log-linear method was 26.4 for 2006 and 27.1 for 2008. The completeness differed according to gender. In men, the completeness was 26.0% for 2006 and 28.1 for 2008. In women, the completeness was 36.5% for 2006 and 46.9 for 2008. In conclusion, none of the three sources can be considered as a reliable source for accurate cancer incidence estimation.

Using Data to Improve Quality: the Pediatric Cardiac Care Consortium.

A program to collect and analyze cardiac catheterization, electrophysiologic studies and cardiac operations in children was initiated in 1982. The purpose was to help centers compare their experience and outcomes with a group of centers to determine areas where their performance might improve. Cardiac centers became members of the Pediatric Cardiac Care Consortium and submitted demographic data and copies of procedure reports regularly to a central office. Data were extracted from the reports, coded by trained coders and entered into a computer database. Annually, the data were analyzed to compare the experience of an individual center with that of the entire group of centers. The annual data were adjusted for severity on the basis of eight factors selected after discussion with participants in the Consortium. Adjustment was by multivariate analysis. Reports were prepared for each center and distributed at an annual meeting. The data were used by centers to review operations where the mortality rate exceeded +2 standard deviations of the group. With discussion, the center staff often initiated changes to improve outcome. The outcome could then be monitored by the annual reports. Our data were also utilized in the creation of the Risk Adjustment for Surgery for Congenital Heart Disease (RACHS)-1 categories of disease severity. The mortality rates of our centers were comparable with the combined hospital discharge data from New York, Massachusetts, and California. From 1982 through 2007, the mortality rates of our centers dropped for each RACHS-1 category, falling to less than 1% for categories 1 and 2 for the last 5-year period. During the 25 years, we received data from 52 centers about 137 654 patients who underwent 117 756 cardiac operations.

The Good, the Bad, the Ugly and the Even Better of Rapid Abstracting.

With the ever increasing and welcome demand for our cancer registry data at Moffitt Cancer Center (an National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center), the traditional cancer registry model of abstracting 4 to 6 months after date of first contact became more and more of a hindrance to the mutual goals and vision for use of our data. We set a goal of utilizing the American College of Surgeon's Rapid Quality Reporting System and we knew that, to use the functionality of that system to improve patient timelines for treatment, we would need to rapidly abstract all our analytic breast and colorectal cases. Rapid abstracting is the method whereby all diagnostic, surgical, and staging information must be gathered in order to complete the first half of the abstract 4 to 6 weeks from date of first contact.

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.

UNLABELLED: Population-based cancer registries (CRs) in Europe have played a supportive, sometimes guiding, role in describing geographic variation of cancer epidemics and comparisons of oncological practice and preventive interventions since the 1950s for all types of cancer, separate and simultaneously. This paper deals with historical and longitudinal developments of the roughly 160 CRs and their programme owners (POs) that emerged since 1927 and accelerating since the late 70s especially in southern and continental Europe. About 40 million newly diagnosed patients were recorded since the 1950s out of a total of 100 million of whom almost 20 million are still alive and about 10% annually dying from cancer. The perception of unity in diversity and suboptimal comparability in performance and governance of CRs was confirmed in the EUROCOURSE (EUROpe against cancer: Optimisation of the Use of Registries for Scientific Excellence in research) European Research Area (ERA)-net coordination FP7 project of the European Commission (EU) which explored best practices, bottlenecks and future challenges of CRs. Regional oncologic and public health changes but also academic embedding of CRs varied considerably, although Anno 2012 optimal cancer surveillance indeed demanded intensive collaboration with professional and institutional stakeholders in two major areas (public health and clinical research) and five minor overlapping cancer research domains: aetiologic research, mass screening evaluation, quality of care, translational prognostics and survivorship. Each of these domains address specific study questions, mixes of disciplines, methodologies, additional data-sources and funding mechanisms. POs tended to become more and more public health institutes, Health ministries, but also comprehensive cancer centres and cancer societies through more and more funding at project or programme basis. POs were not easy to pin down because of their multiple, sometimes competitive (funding) obligations and increasing complexity of cancer surveillance. But they also rather seemed to need guiding principles for Governance of 'their' CR(s) as well as to appreciate value of collaborative research in Europe and shield CRs against unreasonable data protection in case of linkages. Despite access to specialised care related shortcomings, especially of survival cohort studies, European databases for studies of incidence and survival (such as ACCIS and EUREG on the one hand and EUROCARE and RARECARE on the other hand) have proved to be powerful means for comparative national or regional cancer surveillance. Pooling of comparable data will exhibit much instructive variation in time and place. If POs of CRs would consider multinational European studies of risk and prognosis of cancer more to serve their own regional or national interest, then progress in this field will accelerate and lead to more consistent funding from the EU. The current 20 million cancer survivors and their care providers are likely to appreciate more feedback. CONCLUSION: Most CRs remain uniquely able to report on progress against cancer by studies of variation in incidence (in time and place), detection and survival, referral and treatment patterns and their (side) effects in unselected patients, the latter especially in the (very) elderly. Programming and profiling its multiple and diverse clinical and prevention research is likely to promote involvement of public health and clinical stakeholders with a population-based research interest, increasingly patient groups and licensed 'buyers' of oncologic services.