Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Cancer Causes & Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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. 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. 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. Cutler SJ, ed. (1964)International Symposium on End Results of Cancer Therapy. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, NCI Monograph 15.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. CONCORD Study Steering Committee (2001)Cancer Survival in Europe and North America: The CONCORD Study Protocol. London.

  9. Jemal A, Thomas A, Murray T, Thun M (2002)Cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 52: 23–47.

    Google Scholar 

  10. National Cancer Institute (1990)Treatment of early-stage breast cancer. NIH Consens Statement 8(6): 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  11. American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC)(1997)American Joint Commission on Cancer Staging Manual, 5th edn. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  12. NIH Consensus Conference (1990)Adjuvant therapy for patients with colon and rectal cancer. JAMA 264(11): 1440–1450.

    Google Scholar 

  13. National Cancer Institute Physican Data Query (PDQ®. Avail-able at: www.cancer.gov. Accessed August 12, 2003.

  14. National Cancer Institute Colon Cancer (PDQ®. Treatment- Health Professionals Online. Available at: www.cancer.gov. Accessed August 12, 2003.

  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. 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: //landview.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t6/tab01.pdf. Accessed April 14, 2003.

  17. National Institutes of Health NIH consensus panel recommends a range of adjuvant therapies for women with breast cancer. Available at: http: //wwwcancer.gov/clinicaltrials/developments/ breast-cancer-consensus-panel1100. Accessed Nov 28, 2001.

  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. Levy PS, Lemeshow S. (1991)Sampling of Population: Methods and Applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  20. (1990)International Classiffication of Diseases for Oncology, 2nd edn. Geneva: World Health Organization.

  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. Berkson J, Gage RP (1950)Calculation of survival rates for cancer. Proc Sta. Meet Mayo Clinic 25: 270–286.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. Ogle KS, Swanson GM, Woods N, et al. (2000)Cancer and comorbidity. Cancer 88(3): 653–663.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cancer Surveillance Branch, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NCHSTP/DHAP, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, Atlanta, GA MS E-47, USA

    Kathleen McDavid

  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mailstop E-47, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA, 30333, USA

    Kathleen McDavid

  3. New York State Department of Health, New York State Cancer Registry, New York State Cancer Registry, Corning Tower, Room 536, Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY, USA

    Maria J. Schymura

  4. NCHSTP/DTBE, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, Atlanta, GA, MS E-10, USA

    Lori Armstrong

  5. Wadsworth Center-Laboratory Response Network, New York State Department of Health, New York State Cancer Registry, Empire State Plaza, P.O. Box 509, Albany, NY, USA

    Loretta Santilli

  6. Dept Public Health & Preventive Medicine, LSU Health Sciences Center, Louisiana Tumor Registry, Louisiana Tumor Registry, 1600 Canal St Suite 900A, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Beth Schmidt

  7. Colorado Central Cancer Registry, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, 4200 East Ninth Avenue, C245, Denver, CO, USA

    Tim Byers

  8. Cancer Surveillance Branch, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NCHSTP/DHAP, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, Atlantas, GA, MS E-47, USA

    C. Brooke. Steele

  9. California Cancer Registry, California Cancer Registry, 1700 Tribute Road #100, Sacramento, CA, USA

    Lilia O'Connor, Nancy C. Schlag & Winny Roshala

  10. Rhode Island Cancer Registry, Hospital Association of Rhode Island, 880 Butler Drive, Suite #1, Providence, RI, USA

    Dottie Darcy

  11. School of Hygiene and Public Health, Dept. of Epidemiology, District of Columbia Cancer Registry, Johns Hopkins University, 111 Market Place, Suite 850, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Genevieve Matanoski

  12. Division of Epidemiologic Studies, Illinois Department of Public Health, Illinois State Cancer Registry, 605 West Jefferson Street, Springfield, IL, USA

    Tiefu Shen

  13. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, South Carolina Cancer Registry, South Carolina Central Cancer Registry, Public Health Statistics and Information Services, 2600 Bull Street, Columbia, SC, USA

    Susan Bolick-Aldrich

Authors
  1. Kathleen McDavid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria J. Schymura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lori Armstrong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Loretta Santilli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Beth Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tim Byers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. C. Brooke. Steele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lilia O'Connor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Nancy C. Schlag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Winny Roshala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Dottie Darcy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Genevieve Matanoski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Tiefu Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Susan Bolick-Aldrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McDavid, K., Schymura, M.J., Armstrong, L. et al. Rationale and design of the National Program of Cancer Registries' breast, colon, and prostate cancer patterns of care study. Cancer Causes Control 15, 1057–1066 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-004-1555-5

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-004-1555-5

Search

Navigation