Evaluating the Educational Value of Cancer Registries - a Systematic Review and Thematic Analysis.

Cancer registries encompass a broad array of functions that underpin cancer control efforts. Despite education being fundamental to improving patient outcomes, little is known regarding the educational value of cancer registries. This review will evaluate the educational value of cancer registries for key stakeholders as reported within published literature and identify opportunities for enhancing their educational value. Four databases (Ovid Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science) were searched using a predefined search strategy in keeping with the PRISMA statement. Data was extracted and synthesised in narrative format. Themes and frequency of discussion of educational content were explored using thematic content analysis. From 952 titles, ten eligible studies were identified, highlighting six stakeholder groups. Educational outcomes were identified relating to clinicians (6/10), researchers (5/10), patients (4/10), public health organisations (3/10), medical students (1/10) and the public (1/10). Cancer registries were found to educationally benefit key stakeholders despite educational value not being a key focus of any study. Deliberate efforts to harness the educational value of cancer registries should be considered to enable data-driven quality improvement, with the vast amount of data promising ample educational benefit.

Identifying a common data dictionary across colorectal cancer outcome registries: A mapping exercise to identify opportunities for data dictionary harmonisation.

IMPORTANCE: The development of colorectal cancer outcome registries internationally has been organic, with differing datasets, data definitions and infrastructure across registries which has limited data pooling and international comparison. Currently there is no comprehensive data dictionary identified as a standard. This study is part of an international collaboration that aims to identify areas of data capture and usage which may be optimised to improve understanding of colorectal cancer outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare and identify commonalities and areas of difference across major colorectal cancer registries. We sought to establish datasets comprising of mutually collected common fields, and a combined comprehensive dataset of all collected fields across major registries to aid in establishing a future colorectal cancer registry database standard. DESIGN AND METHODS: This mixed qualitative and quantitative study compared data dictionaries from three major colorectal cancer outcome registries: Bowel Cancer Outcomes Registry (BCOR) (Australia and New Zealand), National Bowel Cancer Audit (NBOCA) (United Kingdom) and Dutch ColoRectal Audit (DCRA) (Netherlands). Registries were compared and analysed thematically, and a common dataset and combined comprehensive dataset were developed. These generated datasets were compared to data dictionaries from Sweden (SCRCR), Denmark (DCCG), Argentina (BNCCR-A) and the USA (NAACCR and ACS NSQIP). Fields were assessed against prominent quality indicator metrics from the literature and current case-use. RESULTS: We developed a combined comprehensive dataset of 225 fields under seven domains: demographic, pre-operative, operative, post-operative, pathology, neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapy, and follow up/recurrence. A common dataset was developed comprising 38 overlapping fields, showing a low degree of mutually collected data, especially in preoperative, post operative and adjuvant therapy domains. The BNCCR-A, SCRCR and DCCG databases all contained a high percentage of common dataset fields. Fields were poorly comparable when viewed form current quality indicator metrics. CONCLUSION: This study mapped data dictionaries of prominent colorectal cancer registries and highlighted areas of commonality and difference The developed common field dataset provides a foundation for registries to benchmark themselves and work towards harmonisation of data dictionaries. This has the potential to enable meaningful large-scale international outcomes research.

Cancer incidence and outcomes registries in an Australian context: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Multiple cancer registries in Australia are used to track the incidence of cancer and the outcomes of their treatment. These registries can be broadly classed into a few types with an increasing number of registries comes a greater potential for collaboration and linkage. This article aims to critically review cancer registry types in Australia and evaluate the Australian Cancer registry landscape to identify these areas. METHODS: A systematic review was performed through MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, updated to September 2022 using a predefined search strategy. Inclusion criteria were those that only analysed Australian and/or New Zealand based cancer registries, appraised the utility of cancer outcomes and/or incidence registries, and explored the utility of linked databases using cancer outcomes and/or incidence registries. The grey literature was searched for all operating cancer registries in Australia. Details of registry infrastructure was extracted for analysis and comparison. RESULTS: Three thousand two hundred and sixteen articles identified from the three databases. Twelve met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-eight registries were identified using the grey literature. Strengths and weaknesses of Cancer Outcome Registries(COR) and Cancer Incidence Registries(CIR) were compared. Data linkage between registries or with other healthcare databases show great benefits in improving evidence for cancer research but are challenging to implement. Both registry types utilize differing modes of administration, influencing their accuracy and completeness. CONCLUSION: Outcome registries provide detailed data but their weakness lies in incomplete data coverage. Incidence registries record a large dataset which contain inaccuracies. Improving coverage of quality outcome registries, and quality assurance of data in incidence registries is required to ensure collection of accurate, meaningful data. Areas for collaboration identified included establishment of defined definitions and outcomes, data linkage between registry types or with healthcare databases, and collaboration in logistical planning to improve clinical utility of cancer registries.