1 / 13

Impact of corrections on RARECARE indicators Preliminary analysis Riccardo Capocaccia

Impact of corrections on RARECARE indicators Preliminary analysis Riccardo Capocaccia. Analysis. 26,980 cases sent for revision to 36 registries Several registries, not included in the RARECARE database, subsequently joined Several registries revised only a subset of cases

lukas
Download Presentation

Impact of corrections on RARECARE indicators Preliminary analysis Riccardo Capocaccia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Impact of corrections on RARECARE indicatorsPreliminary analysisRiccardo Capocaccia

  2. Analysis • 26,980 cases sent for revision to 36 registries • Several registries, not included in the RARECARE database, subsequently joined • Several registries revised only a subset of cases • Incidence and observed survival indicators were estimated from the original and the revised datasets • Only registries included in the database, and which revised each specific cancer were considered

  3. Mesothelioma • 3658 pleural mesotheliomas in participating registries • 507 cases revised because survival > 2 year • 24 cases removed: 5-yr survival = 54.2 • 692 pleural cancers revised • 42 cases added : 5-yr survival = 0.0 • Number of cases increased by + 3.6%

  4. Mesothelioma • Number of incident mesotheliomas: 3658 • Incidence in participating registries: 1.35 • 5-yr survival in participating registries: 6.35 Hypothesis (A): all misclassified cases are in the subset of 507 cases revised • Incidence 1.36 • 5-yr survival 5.97 Hypothesis (B): the proportion of misclassification among all cases is the same of that in the revised subset • Incidence 1.40 • 5-yr survival 3.65

  5. Liver angiosarcoma • 82 cases of liver angiosarcoma sent for revision • all diagnoses confirmed • 13 with survival > 1 years • survival information corrected in 9 cases • including all the 8 Austrian cases • Survival in Austria changed: from 27% to 24%

  6. Sarcoma NOS and GIST 366 cases of GIST in participating registries • incidence: 0.11 • 5-yr survival: 61.6% 2980 cases of Sarcoma NOS sent for revision 108 new GIST cases found • corrected incidence: 0.14 • corrected 5-yr survival: 74.6%

  7. Revision by cohort of incidence

  8. Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia NOS • A total of 2627 CML NOS cases revised • 200 cases corrected to CML BCRABL + • 46 cases already present in the database • same entity as CML NOS • 26 cases corrected to CML BCRABL -

  9. Atypical chronic myeloid leukemia BCRABL negative • 6 cases in participating registries • 20 cases added • 3-year survival: 66.7% • corrected 3-yr survival: 32.0%

  10. Revision by cohort of incidence

  11. CNS cancers NOS 3861 cases of CNS NOS in participating registries 1503 sent for revision because surv > 1 564 revised Main changes: 46 astrocytomas adding to 8864 cases in the same registries 6 oligodendrogliomas (adding to 577) 2 ependimomas (adding to 404) Negligible impact on incidence and survival

  12. Proportion of lost to FU and long-term relative survival: Colon & Rectum L = 0.127

  13. Comments • Quality control of site and morphology was effective • For many entities, indicators’ estimates are not dramatically affected ... • ... with the exception of some rare cancers (GIST, CML subtypes) ... • ... and mostly for the first years of ICDO-3 • Follow-up revision is also important for many registries

More Related