Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 15, Issue 10, pp 1057–1066 | Cite as

Rationale and design of the National Program of Cancer Registries' breast, colon, and prostate cancer patterns of care study

  • Kathleen McDavid
  • Maria J. Schymura
  • Lori Armstrong
  • Loretta Santilli
  • Beth Schmidt
  • Tim Byers
  • C. Brooke. Steele
  • Lilia O'Connor
  • Nancy C. Schlag
  • Winny Roshala
  • Dottie Darcy
  • Genevieve Matanoski
  • Tiefu Shen
  • Susan Bolick-Aldrich


Background: Investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), are collaborating with public health professionals from seven states and the District of Columbia to conduct the Patterns of Care study to assess the quality of cancer data and to determine whether stage-specific treatments are being carried out.

Methods: To assess the quality and completeness of cancer care data in the United States, trained staff from the Patterns of Care study are abstracting medical records to obtain detailed clinical data on treatment, tumor characteristics, stage at diagnosis, and demographics of representative samples of patients diagnosed with breast, colon, and prostate cancer. Altogether staff from each of the eight participating cancer registries will abstract 500 cases of breast, prostate, and colon/rectum/anus cancer for the CONCORD study and an additional 150 cases of localized breast cancer, 100 cases of stage III colon cancer, and 100 cases of localized prostate cancer for the Patterns of Care study. Chi-square tests will be used to compare routine registry data with re-abstracted data. The investigators will use logistic regression techniques to describe the characteristics of patients with localized breast and prostate cancer and stage III colon cancer. Age, race, sex, type of insurance, and comorbidity will be examined as predictors of the use of those treatments that are consistent with consensus guidelines. The investigators plan to use data from the CONCORD study to determine whether treatment factors are the reason for the reported differences between relative survival rates in the United States and Europe.

Conclusions Results from the methodology used in the Patterns of Care study will provide, for the first time, detailed information about the quality and completeness of stage and treatment data that are routinely collected by states participating in the NPCR. It will add significantly to our understanding of factors that determine receipt of treatment in compliance with established guidelines. As part of the CONCORD study, it will also examine differences in survival among cancer patients with breast, prostate, and colon/rectum/anus cancers in the United States and Europe.

breast cancer cancer treatment colon cancer prostate cancer 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hewitt M, Simone JV (2000)Enhancing Data Systems to Improve the Quality of Cancer Care. National Cancer Policy Board, Institute of Medicine, and Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hewitt M, Simone JV (1999)Ensuring Quality Cancer Care. National Cancer Policy Board, Institute of Medicine, and Com-mission on Life Sciences, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gatta G, Capocaccia R, Coleman MP, et al. (2000)Toward a comparison of cancer survival in American and European cancer patients. Cancer 89: 893–900.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cutler SJ, ed. (1964)International Symposium on End Results of Cancer Therapy. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, NCI Monograph 15.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berrino F, Capocaccia R, Estève J, et al. eds. (1999) Survival of Cancer Patients in Europe: the EUROCARE-2 Study. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC scientific publication No. 151.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gorey KM, Holowaty EJ, Fehringer G, et al. (1997)An international comparison of cancer survival: Toronto, Ontario, and Detroit, Michigan metropolitan areas. Am J Public Health 87: 1156–1163.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gorey KM, Holowaty EJ, Laukkanen E, Fehringer G, Richter NL (1998)An international comparison of cancer survival: advantage of Toronto 's poor over the near-poor of Detroit. Rev Canad Sante ´ Publ 89: 102–104.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    CONCORD Study Steering Committee (2001)Cancer Survival in Europe and North America: The CONCORD Study Protocol. London.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jemal A, Thomas A, Murray T, Thun M (2002)Cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 52: 23–47.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    National Cancer Institute (1990)Treatment of early-stage breast cancer. NIH Consens Statement 8(6): 1–19.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC)(1997)American Joint Commission on Cancer Staging Manual, 5th edn. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    NIH Consensus Conference (1990)Adjuvant therapy for patients with colon and rectal cancer. JAMA 264(11): 1440–1450.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    National Cancer Institute Physican Data Query (PDQ®. Avail-able at: Accessed August 12, 2003.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Cancer Institute Colon Cancer (PDQ®. Treatment- Health Professionals Online. Available at: Accessed August 12, 2003.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)(2001)Program Announcement 1102: National Program of Cancer Registries. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    United States Census Bureau (2001)Census 2000 redistricting data (PL 94–171). Summary of les for states and for Puerto Rico, Tables PL1 and PL2. Data released on April 2, 2001. Available at: http: // Accessed April 14, 2003.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Institutes of Health NIH consensus panel recommends a range of adjuvant therapies for women with breast cancer. Available at: http: // breast-cancer-consensus-panel1100. Accessed Nov 28, 2001.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hodgson DC, Fuchs CS, Ayanian JZ (2001)Impact of patient and provider characteristics on the treatment and outcomes of colo-rectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 93(7): 501–515.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levy PS, Lemeshow S. (1991)Sampling of Population: Methods and Applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    (1990)International Classiffication of Diseases for Oncology, 2nd edn. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Estève J, Benhamou E, Raymond L (1994)Statistical Methods in Cancer Research, Volume IV. Descriptive epidemiology. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Scientific Publications No. 128.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Berkson J, Gage RP (1950)Calculation of survival rates for cancer. Proc Sta. Meet Mayo Clinic 25: 270–286.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fisher B, Dignam J, Tan-Chiu E, et al. (2001)Prognosis and treatment of patients with breast tumors of one centimeter or less and negative axillary lymph nodes. J Natl Cancer Inst 93: 112–120.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Athas WF, Adams-Cameron M, Hunt WC, et al. (2000)Travel distance to radiation therapy and receipt of radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery. J Natl Cancer Inst 92: 269–271.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ballard-Barbash R, Petosky AL, Harlan LC, et al. (1996)Factors associated with surgical and radiation therapy for early stage breast cancer in older women. J Natl Cancer Inst 88 (11): 716–726.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ogle KS, Swanson GM, Woods N, et al. (2000)Cancer and comorbidity. Cancer 88(3): 653–663.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dominitz JA, Samsa GP, Landsman P, et al. (1998)Race, treatment, and survival among colorectal carcinoma patients in an equal access medical system. Cancer 82: 2312–2320.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hodgson DC, Fuchs CS, Ayanian JZ (2001)Impact of patient and provider characteristics on the treatment and outcomes of colo-rectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 93(7): 501–515.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Roetzheim RG, Pal N, Gonzalez EC, et al. (2000)Effects of health insurance and race on colorectal cancer treatments and outcomes. Public Health Rep 90: 1746–1754.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wingo PA, Ries LAG, Parker SL, et al. (1998)Long-term cancer patient survival in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 7: 271–282.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mettlin CJ, Murphy GP, Cunningham MP, Menck HR (1997)The National Cancer Data Base report on race, age, and region variations in prostate cancer treatment. Cancer 80: 1261–1266.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fleming ID, Phillips LJ, Menck HR, et al. (1997)The National Cancer Data Base report on recent hospital cancer program progress toward complete American Joint Committee on Cancer/ TNM staging. Cancer 80: 2305–2310.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Severson RK, Montie JE, Porter AT, et al. (1995)Recent trends in incidence and treatment of prostate cancer among elderly men. J Natl Cancer Inst 87: 532–534.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Harlan L, Brawley O, Pommerenke F, et al. (1995)Geographic, age, and racial variation in the treatment of local/regional carcinoma of the prostate. J Clin Oncol 13: 93–100.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stanford JL, Stephenson RA, Coyle LM, et al. (1999)Prostate Cancer Trends 1973–1995. SEER Program, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health. NIH Publication 99–4543.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Potosky AL, Merrill RM, Riley GF, et al. (1999)Prostate cancer treatment and ten-year survival among group/sta. HMO and fee-for-service Medicare patients. Health Serv Res 34(2): 525–546.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bennett C, Green eld S, Aronow H, et al. (1991)Patterns of care related to age of men with prostate cancer. Cancer 67: 2633–2641.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Klabunde CN, Potosky AL, Harlan LC, et al. (1998)Trends and black/white differences in treatment for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Med Care 36: 1337–1348.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Meltzer D, Egleston B, Abdalla I (2001)Patterns of prostate cancer treatment by clinical stage and age. Am J Public Health 91: 126–128.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Potosky AL, Harlan LC, Stanford JL, et al. (1999)Prostate cancer practice patterns and quality of life: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 91(20): 1719–1724.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Morris CR, Snipes KP, Schlag R, et al. (1999)Sociodemographic factors associated with prostatectomy utilization and concordance with the physician data query for prostate cancer (United States). Cancer Causes Control 10: 503–511.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Optenberg SA, Thompson IM, Friedrichs P, et al. (1995)Race, treatment, and long-term survival from prostate cancer in an equal-access medical care delivery system. JAMA 274: 1599–1605.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nattinger AB, McAuliffe TL, Schapira MM (1997)Generalizabil-ity of the surveillance, epidemiology and end results registry population: factors relevant to epidemiologic and health care research. J Clin Epidemiol 50(8): 939–945.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bland KI, Menck HR, Scott-Conner CEH, et al. (1998)The National Cancer Data Base 10-year survey of breast carcinoma treatment at hospitals in the United States. Cancer 83(6): 1262–1273.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cooper GS, Yuan Z, Stange KC, et al. (2000)Agreement of Medicare claims and tumor registry data for assessment of cancer-related treatment. Med Care 38(4): 411–421.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathleen McDavid
    • 1
    • 2
  • Maria J. Schymura
    • 3
  • Lori Armstrong
    • 4
  • Loretta Santilli
    • 5
  • Beth Schmidt
    • 6
  • Tim Byers
    • 7
  • C. Brooke. Steele
    • 8
  • Lilia O'Connor
    • 9
  • Nancy C. Schlag
    • 9
  • Winny Roshala
    • 9
  • Dottie Darcy
    • 10
  • Genevieve Matanoski
    • 11
  • Tiefu Shen
    • 12
  • Susan Bolick-Aldrich
    • 13
  1. 1.Cancer Surveillance Branch, Division of Cancer Prevention and ControlCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, NCHSTP/DHAPAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Centers for Disease Control and PreventionAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.New York State Department of Health, New York State Cancer RegistryNew York State Cancer Registry, Corning TowerAlbanyUSA
  4. 4.NCHSTP/DTBEAtlantaUSA
  5. 5.Wadsworth Center-Laboratory Response Network, New York State Department of HealthNew York State Cancer RegistryAlbanyUSA
  6. 6.Dept Public Health & Preventive MedicineLSU Health Sciences Center, Louisiana Tumor Registry, Louisiana Tumor RegistryNew OrleansUSA
  7. 7.Colorado Central Cancer RegistryUniversity of Colorado Health Sciences CenterDenverUSA
  8. 8.Cancer Surveillance Branch, Division of Cancer Prevention and ControlCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, NCHSTP/DHAPAtlantasUSA
  9. 9.California Cancer RegistryCalifornia Cancer RegistrySacramentoUSA
  10. 10.Rhode Island Cancer RegistryHospital Association of Rhode IslandProvidenceUSA
  11. 11.School of Hygiene and Public Health, Dept. of Epidemiology, District of Columbia Cancer RegistryJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  12. 12.Division of Epidemiologic Studies, Illinois Department of Public HealthIllinois State Cancer RegistrySpringfieldUSA
  13. 13.South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, South Carolina Cancer RegistrySouth Carolina Central Cancer Registry, Public Health Statistics and Information ServicesColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations