Cancer Registration

  • Michael Alderson


During the nineteenth century a number of authorities pointed out the drawbacks of mortality data; one outcome of this was that at the beginning of the present century attempts were made to collect cancer morbidity data. This was initially done by carrying out a census of patients with the disease; estimates of the prevalence of cancer were obtained for Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Hungary in the first few years of the century. Such a method of data collection was open to considerable error, owing to the difficulty of obtaining the co-operation of all the doctors involved (Dollinger, 1907). Registration of patients treated with radium began in Great Britain in 1928, by the National Radium Commission. Between the two world wars regional cancer registries were set up in various countries; these provided morbidity data of value. In 1942, despite enemy occupation, Denmark became the first country to establish a national registry (Clemmesen, 1965). The other Scandinavian countries soon followed, with registries based on lines practically identical with those of the Danish one. With the inception of the National Health Service, the national cancer registry scheme was launched in England and Wales. It was not until 1962 that all the regions of the country were covered by the scheme (Registrar General, 1968). A scheme for registration was introduced in Scotland in 1958.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

4.4 Bibliography 4.4.1 Incidence not Covered by IARC

  1. Afghanistan Sobin (1969)Google Scholar
  2. Algeria Yaker (1980)Google Scholar
  3. Argentina Bianco (1982)Google Scholar
  4. Bolivia Rios Dalenz (1981)Google Scholar
  5. Botswana Macrae and Cook (1975)Google Scholar
  6. Cameroon Jensen et al. (1978)Google Scholar
  7. Congo Tyns and Ravisse (1970)Google Scholar
  8. Egypt Aboul Nasr (1980)Google Scholar
  9. Finland 1953–82 (atlas): Pukkala et al. (1987)Google Scholar
  10. Fiji Boyd et al. (1973a)Google Scholar
  11. India Malhotra (1967: gastro-intestinal cancers)Google Scholar
  12. Indonesia 1970–3: Soeripto et al (1977)Google Scholar
  13. Iran Habibi (1970); Ghadirian et al. (1980)Google Scholar
  14. Kuwait Omar (1982)Google Scholar
  15. Lesotho Martin (1976)Google Scholar
  16. Liberia Sobo (1982)Google Scholar
  17. Madagascar Coulanges et al. (1979)Google Scholar
  18. Malaysia Armstrong and Ahluwalia (1979)Google Scholar
  19. Norway Regional data: Norwegian Cancer Society (1978)Google Scholar
  20. Pacific basin Menck and Henderson (1979, 1982)Google Scholar
  21. Panama 1974–8: Reeves et al. (1982)Google Scholar
  22. Papua Atkinson et al. (1983)Google Scholar
  23. Peru Olivares (1982)Google Scholar
  24. Philippines Philippine Cancer Society (1981)Google Scholar
  25. Scotland atlas 1975–80: Kemp et al. (1985)Google Scholar
  26. Sudan Sudan Ministry of Health (1978)Google Scholar
  27. Thailand National Cancer Institute of Thailand (1980)Google Scholar
  28. Turkey Bilir (1981)Google Scholar
  29. United States 1937–47: Dorn and Cutler (1959) 1967–71: Cutler and Young (1975) 1935–74: Devesa and Silverman (1978) 1969–76: Pollack and Horm (1980) 1973–7: Youngs al (1981Google Scholar
  30. USSR 1969–71 and 1975: Napalkov et al (1983) Estonia: Staneczek et al (1982) Ukraine 1958–77: Guslitser et al (1981)Google Scholar
  31. Individual SitesGoogle Scholar
  32. Prostate 38 countries, 1957–72: Hakulinen et al (1978)Google Scholar
  33. Neuroblastoma Denmark, 1943–80: Carlsen (1986)Google Scholar
  34. Childhood cancer Sweden 1958–74: Erichsson et al (1978)Google Scholar
  35. Melanoma Survey in USA, 1977–8: Scotto et al (1983)Google Scholar

4.4.2 International Survival Statistics

  1. Bailar et al. (1966) mounted a special study to identify possible reasons for the difference in survival between England and Wales and the US for cervical cancer. Detailed examination was made of records for a regional register in each of the countries: no bias in method of preparing incidence and survival data was identified which could account for the persistent differences in the results.Google Scholar
  2. Data for various countries have been published as follows (the years indicate the period of recording incidence involved in the material): 8 countries for 30 sites Logan (1978)Google Scholar
  3. Belgium 1964–5: National Confederation of Christian Sickness Funds (1981)Google Scholar
  4. Finland 1953–74: Hakulinen et al. (1981)Google Scholar
  5. Great Britain 1960–74: Cancer Research Campaign (1982)Google Scholar
  6. Norway 1953–67: Norwegian Cancer Society (1975) 1968–75: Cancer Registry of Norway (1980)Google Scholar
  7. United States 1940–64: Axtell et al. (1972) 1950–69: Axtell et al. (1976) 1960–73: Myers and Hankey (1980) 1977–82: (Hodgkin’s disease): Davis et al. (1987)Google Scholar

4.4.3 Clustering

  1. Bailar et al. (1970), Barton et al. (1965), Ederer et al. (1964), Gunz and Speirs (1968), Klauber (1971), Knox (1963, 1964), Mantel (1967), Ohno et al. (1979), Pearson (1913), Pike and Smith (1968), Smith (1982)Google Scholar
  2. Burkitt’s lymphoma East Africa: Williams et al. (1978)Google Scholar

4.4.4 Prediction

  1. Hakama et al. (1986); Hakulinen and Pukkala (1982); Sandstad (1982); Boyle and Robertson (1987)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Michael Alderson 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Alderson
    • 1
  1. 1.SouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations