Reliability of collecting colorectal cancer stage information from pathology reports and general practitioners in Queensland

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the reliability of collecting colorectal stage information from pathology reports and general practitioners in Queensland, Australia. Methods: A longitudinal study of colorectal cancer survivors conducted in 2003 and 2004 (n=1966, response rate=57%) obtained stage information from clinical specialists (n=1334), general practitioners (GP) (n=1417) and by extracting stage from pathology reports (n=1484). Reliability of stage information was determined by comparing stage from GPs and pathology reports with that reported by the clinical specialists, using a weighted kappa. Results: GPs and pathology reports each had a similar level of agreement with clinical specialists, with kappa scores of 0.77 (0.75‐0.80) (n=1042) and 0.78 (0.75‐0.81) (n=1152), respectively. Results were similar when restricting to records staged by all three methods (n=847). GPs had similar levels of agreement with clinical specialists within each stage, although pathology reports tended to under‐stage patients in Stage D (0.37). Collapsing stage into two categories (A or B, C or D) increased the reliability estimates from the pathology reports to 0.91 (0.88‐0.93), but there was little change in GP estimates 0.79 (0.75‐0.83). Conclusions: Extractions from pathology reports are a valid source of broad stage information for colorectal cancer. Implications: In the absence of clinical stage data, access to pathology records by population‐based cancer registries enables a more accurate assessment of survival inequalities in colorectal cancer survival.

Spatial inequalities in colorectal and breast cancer survival: Premature deaths and associated factors

“…However, consistent with recent reports (Baade et al, 2011c;Krnjacki et al, 2008;Youlden et al, 2009), ''Early'' breast cancer was defined as r20 mm diameter with no evidence of lymph node involvement or distant metastases (stage I).…”

“…To increase accuracy (Krnjacki et al, 2008) and reduce problems with sparse data, stage was grouped into three categories: early (localized/ non-localized), advanced (regional/distant) and unknown.…”

“…Colorectal cancer stage was extracted from pathology records held by the QCR (Krnjacki et al, 2008) and then classified based on the Dukes staging system (Haq et al, 2009). To increase accuracy (Krnjacki et al, 2008) and reduce problems with sparse data, stage was grouped into three categories: early (localized/ non-localized), advanced (regional/distant) and unknown.…”

Predictors of physical activity in colorectal cancer survivors after participation in a telephone-delivered multiple health behavior change intervention

“…Clinical variables assessed were: BMI (self-reported height and weight), disease type, time since diagnosis, treatment received, on current treatment, Duke's staging derived from pathology reports held in the Cancer Registry [28] and co-morbidities. Group assignment (UC or HC) was also included as a predictor variable.…”

Multiple primary cancers among colorectal cancer survivors in Queensland, Australia, 1996–2007

“…Colorectal cancer staging As has been described previously [21,22], information extracted from pathology forms was used to determine CRC stage at diagnosis according to the TNM system [23]. Localized cases (stages I-II) were grouped together as ''early stage'' while regional and distant tumors (stages III-IV) were categorized as ''advanced stage'' [24] to allow sufficient numbers when modeling.…”