Using personal health insurance numbers to link the Canadian Cancer Registry and the Discharge Abstract Database.

BACKGROUND: Linking cancer registry and administrative data can reveal health care use patterns among cancer patients. The Canadian Cancer Registry (CCR) contains personal health insurance numbers (HINs) that facilitate linkage to hospitalization information in the Discharge Abstract Database (DAD). DATA AND METHODS: Valid HINs, captured in the CCR or obtained through probabilistic linkages to provincial health insurance registries, were used to deterministically link prostate, female breast, colorectal and lung cancers diagnosed from 2005 through 2008 with the DAD for fiscal years 2004/2005 to 2010/2011. RESULTS: At least 98% of tumours diagnosed from 2005 through 2008 had valid HINs in the CCR or obtained through probabilistic linkages. For provinces submitting day surgeries to the DAD, linkage rates to at least one DAD record were higher for female breast (95.6% to 98.1%), colorectal (96.9% to 98.7%) and lung cancers (92.8% to 96.3%) than for prostate cancers (77.2% to 91.6%). Among linked records, agreement was high for sex (99% or more) and complete date of birth (97% or more); the likelihood of a consistent diagnosis in the CCR and on at least one linked DAD record was higher for female breast (86.8% to 97.2%), colorectal (94.6% to 97.7%) and lung cancers (90.3% to 95.5%) than for prostate cancers (77.4% to 87.8%). INTERPRETATION: Deterministically linking the CCR and DAD using personal HINs is a feasible and valid approach to obtaining hospitalization information about cancer patients.

The value of collecting population-based cancer stage data to support decision-making at organizational, regional and population levels.

The stage of a patient's cancer at diagnosis is essential to predict the prognosis and plan the treatment. Since 2008, stage data have been collected on all Ontario patients with breast, colorectal, lung and prostate cancers and are linked to other data collected by Cancer Care Ontario. Here, an analysis of such data is presented. How it can be used to assess the value of screening programs, inform resource allocation, evaluate compliance with treatment guidelines, compare survival trends and enhance the spectrum of cancer control activities across the province is demonstrated. International comparisons can also be made.

Impact of variation in cancer registration practice on observed international cancer survival differences between International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) jurisdictions.

BACKGROUND: International cancer survival comparisons use cancer registration data to report cancer survival, which informs the development of cancer policy and practice. Studies like the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) have a duty to understand how registration differences impact on survival prior to drawing conclusions. METHODS: Key informants reported differences in registration practice for capturing incidence date, death certificate case handling and registration of multiple primary tumours. Sensitivity analyses estimated their impact on one-year survival using baseline and supplementary cancer registration data from England and Sweden. RESULTS: Variations in registration practice accounted for up to a 7.3 percentage point difference between unadjusted (estimates from previous ICBP survival data) and adjusted (estimates recalculated accounting for registration differences) one-year survival, depending on tumour site and jurisdiction. One-year survival estimates for four jurisdictions were affected by adjustment: New South Wales, Norway, Ontario, Sweden. Sweden and Ontario's survival reduced after adjustment, yet they remained the jurisdictions with the highest survival for breast and ovarian cancer respectively. Sweden had the highest unadjusted lung cancer survival of 43.6% which was adjusted to 39.0% leaving Victoria and Manitoba with the highest estimate at 42.7%. For colorectal cancer, Victoria's highest survival of 85.1% remained unchanged after adjustment. CONCLUSION: Population-based cancer survival comparisons can be subject to registration biases that may impact the reported 'survival gap' between populations. Efforts should be made to apply consistent registration practices internationally. In the meantime, survival comparison studies should provide acknowledgement of or adjustment for the registration biases that may affect their conclusions.

On Capturing Radiological Diagnoses of Brain Tumors to Provide Complete Population Data in Cancer Registries in Canada.

Nonmalignant brain tumors are underreported by an estimated 60% in Canadian cancer registries. One explanation is that radiology facilities or their databases may not be adequately included in the cancer reporting infrastructure. A multidisciplinary stakeholder team met for 1 day, followed by teleconferences, to discuss the evidence for the importance of incorporating radiology diagnoses in brain tumor reports. A role for the neuroradiologist was delineated in brain tumor diagnosis and in ensuring that radiology report information is available to support cancer case ascertainment in the cancer surveillance system. It was noted that brain tumors identified through imaging are clinically managed depending on the diagnosis and prognosis of the disease, and that patient radiology reports become a part of a larger administrative information system. The proportion of nonmalignant brain tumors diagnosed using histology is lower in the United States (49.3%) than in Canada (59%), suggesting that a higher proportion of cases with nonhistologic (likely radiology) diagnosis are captured by the US system (eg, tumors of the sellar region, cranial and spinal tumors, and tumors of the meninges). Finding a way to use existing electronic radiology reports to identify nonmalignant brain tumors needs to be prioritized. This will require access to electronic radiology reports, as manual reporting is impractical. Once access is achieved, an electronic flag to identify new cases through a natural language processing algorithm could be pursued. As radiologists and cancer registrars become more familiar with each other's mandates and workflow demands, innovative and collaborative solutions to improve case ascertainment for brain and other cancers are likely to emerge.

Closing the quality loop: facilitating improvement in oncology practice through timely access to clinical performance indicators.

PURPOSE: Health care organizations and professionals are being called on to develop clear and transparent measures of quality and to demonstrate the application of the data to performance improvement at the system and provider levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) initiated a pathology reporting project aimed at improving the quality of cancer pathology by standardizing the content, format, and transmission of reports to a central registry and enabling the information to be available for planning, quality measurement, and quality improvement. This population-based quality-improvement project involved more than 400 Ontario pathologists and more than 100 hospitals. Clinically relevant quality indicators that used the newly available data were developed and shared. Synoptic pathology data were electronically captured at the point of report development and used to automate the timely generation of clinical performance indicators that support quality improvement in surgical oncology. These reports provided comparison data at the organizational, regional, and population levels. RESULTS: Monthly quality indicator reports are generated and distributed to each cancer center and are used to generate dialogue at the professional, organizational, and regional levels regarding evidence-informed quality-improvement opportunities. Since the launch of the project, colorectal lymph node retrieval rates have increased from 76% to 87%, and pT2 prostatectomy margin positivity rates have decreased from 37% to 21%. CONCLUSION: High-quality, complete cancer pathology reports are important not only for contemporary oncological practice, but also for secondary users of pathology information including tumor registries, health planners, epidemiologists, and others involved in quality-improvement activities and research.