Degree‐of‐spread artefact in the New South Wales Central Cancer Registry

Barraclough, Helen; Morrell, Stephen; Arcorace, Maria; McElroy, Heather; Baker, Deborah

doi:10.1111/j.1753-6405.2008.00271.x

Cited by 28 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Barraclough et al [20] found for the diagnostic period of 1993-1998 that the proportion of localised cancer was 5% lower than expected and was mirrored by an artefactual increase in unknown degree-of-spread cases. This artefact appeared to be largely due to the introduction of electronic notification.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

What factors affect the odds of NSW cancer patients presenting with localised as opposed to more advanced cancer?

Tracey¹,

Roder

Currow³

2011

Cancer Causes Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

What factors affect the odds of NSW cancer patients presenting with localised as opposed to more advanced cancer?

Tracey¹,

Roder

Currow³

2011

Cancer Causes Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Extent of tumour spread, obtained from the CCR, summarises the most aggressive extent of the disease based on diagnostic and therapeutic evidence within four months of diagnosis [20]. Patient sex, age and emergency status of admission were obtained from the APDC, with age calculated at date of procedure.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing measures of comorbidity and functional status for risk adjustment to compare hospital performance for colorectal cancer surgery: a retrospective data-linkage study

Dobbins

Badgery‐Parker

Currow

et al. 2015

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundComparing outcomes between hospitals requires consideration of patient factors that could account for any observed differences. Adjusting for comorbid conditions is common when studying outcomes following cancer surgery, and a commonly used measure is the Charlson comorbidity index. Other measures of patient health include the ECOG performance status and the ASA physical status score. This study aimed to ascertain how frequently ECOG and ASA scores are recorded in population-based administrative data collections in New South Wales, Australia and to assess the contribution each makes in addition to the Charlson comorbidity index in risk adjustment models for comparative assessment of colorectal cancer surgery outcomes between hospitals.MethodsWe used linked administrative data to identify 6964 patients receiving surgery for colorectal cancer in 2007 and 2008. We summarised the frequency of missing data for Charlson comorbidity index, ECOG and ASA scores, and compared patient characteristics between those with and without these measures. The performance of ASA and ECOG in risk adjustment models that also included Charlson index was assessed for three binary outcomes: 12-month mortality, extended length of stay and 28-day readmission. Patient outcomes were compared between hospital peer groups using multilevel logistic regression analysis.ResultsThe Charlson comorbidity index could be derived for all patients, ASA score was recorded for 78 % of patients and ECOG performance status recorded for only 24 % of eligible patients. Including ASA or ECOG improved the predictive ability of models, but there was no consistently best combination. The addition of ASA or ECOG did not substantially change parameter estimates for hospital peer group after adjusting for Charlson comorbidity index.ConclusionsWhile predictive ability of regression models is maximised by inclusion of one or both of ASA score and ECOG performance status, there is little to be gained by adding ASA or ECOG to models containing the Charlson comorbidity index to address confounding. The Charlson comorbidity index has good performance and is an appropriate measure to use in risk adjustment to compare outcomes between hospitals.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-015-0175-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…The registry is run according to the International Association of Cancer Registries (IACR) rules 18 and is one of the few Australian Cancer Registries to record degree of spread at first diagnosis for all solid malignant tumours. 19 Degree of spread is assigned by the NSW CCR into one of four summary stages (localised, regional, distant or unknown). 6 It is defined as the maximum extent of disease based on all diagnostic and therapeutic evidence received within 4 months of diagnosis and follows the international coding guidelines for summary stage adopted by several international groups including the World Health Organisation and the IACR.…”

Section: Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgical Outcomes Associated with Oesophagectomy in New South Wales: An Investigation of Hospital Volume

Stavrou

Smith

Baker

2010

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Degree‐of‐spread artefact in the New South Wales Central Cancer Registry

Cited by 28 publications

References 8 publications

What factors affect the odds of NSW cancer patients presenting with localised as opposed to more advanced cancer?

What factors affect the odds of NSW cancer patients presenting with localised as opposed to more advanced cancer?

Assessing measures of comorbidity and functional status for risk adjustment to compare hospital performance for colorectal cancer surgery: a retrospective data-linkage study

Surgical Outcomes Associated with Oesophagectomy in New South Wales: An Investigation of Hospital Volume

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About