Search

Introduction: The increasing survival of patients with breast cancer has prompted the assessment of mortality due to all causes of death in these patients. We estimated the absolute risks of death from different causes, useful for health-care planning and clinical prediction, as well as cause-specific hazards, useful for hypothesis generation on etiology and risk factors., Materials and Methods: Using data from population-based cancer registries we performed a retrospective study on a cohort of women diagnosed with primary breast cancer. We carried out a competing-cause analysis computing cumulative incidence functions (CIFs) and cause-specific hazards (CSHs) in the whole cohort, separately by age, stage and registry area., Results: The study cohort comprised 12,742 women followed up for six years. Breast cancer showed the highest CIF, 13.71%, and cardiovascular disease was the second leading cause of death with a CIF of 3.60%. The contribution of breast cancer deaths to the CIF for all causes varied widely by age class: 89.25% in women diagnosed at age <50 years, 72.94% in women diagnosed at age 50-69 and 48.25% in women diagnosed at age ≥70. Greater CIF variations were observed according to stage: the contribution of causes other than breast cancer to CIF for all causes was 73.4% in women with stage I disease, 42.9% in stage II-III and only 13.2% in stage IV. CSH computation revealed temporal variations: in women diagnosed at age ≥70 the CSH for breast cancer was equaled by that for cardiovascular disease and "other diseases" in the sixth year following diagnosis, and an early peak for breast cancer was identified in the first year following diagnosis. Among women aged 50-69 we identified an early peak for breast cancer followed by a further peak near the second year of follow-up. Comparison by geographic area highlighted conspicuous variations: the highest CIF for cardiovascular disease was more than 70% higher than the lowest, while for breast cancer the highest CIF doubled the lowest., Conclusion: The integrated interpretation of absolute risks and hazards suggests the need for multidisciplinary surveillance and prevention using community-based, holistic and well-coordinated survivorship care models., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Contiero, Boffi, Borgini, Fabiano, Tittarelli, Mian, Vittadello, Epifani, Ardizzone, Cirilli, Boschetti, Marguati, Cascone, Tumino, Fanetti, Giumelli, Candela, Scuderi, Castelli, Bongiorno, Barigelletti, Perotti, Veronese, Turazza, Crivaro, Tagliabue and the MAPACA Working Group.)

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the functional characteristics of two computer-based systems for quality control of cancer registry data through analysis of their output differences., Methods: The study used cancer incidence data from 22 of the 49 registries of the Italian Network of Cancer Registries registered between 1986 and 2017. Two different data checking systems developed by the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the Joint Research Center (JRC) with the European Network of Cancer Registries (ENCR) and routinely used by registrars were used to check the quality of the data. The outputs generated by the two systems on the same dataset of each registry were analyzed and compared., Results: The study included a total of 1,305,689 cancer cases. The overall quality of the dataset was high, with 86% (81.7-94.1) microscopically verified cases and only 1.3% (0.03-3.06) cases with a diagnosis by death certificate only. The two check systems identified a low percentage of errors (JRC-ENCR 0.17% and IARC 0.003%) and about the same proportion of warnings (JRC-ENCR 2.79% and IARC 2.42%) in the dataset. Forty-two cases (2% of errors) and 7067 cases (11.5% of warnings) were identified by both systems in equivalent categories. 11.7% of warnings related to TNM staging were identified by the JRC-ENCR system only. The IARC system identified mainly incorrect combination of tumor grade and morphology (72.5% of warnings)., Conclusion: Both systems apply checks on a common set of variables, but some variables are checked by only one of the systems (for example, checks on patient follow-up and tumor stage at diagnosis are included by the JRC-ENCR system only). Most errors and warnings were categorized differently by the two systems, but usually described the same issues, with warnings related to "morphology" (JRC-ENCR) and "histology" (IARC) being the most frequent. It is important to find the right balance between the need to maintain high standards of data quality and the workability of such systems in the daily routine of the cancer registry., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Tagliabue, Perotti, Fabiano, Tittarelli, Barigelletti, Contiero, Mazzucco, Fusco, Bidoli, Vicentini, Pesce, Stracci and The Collaborative Working Group.)