4.5 Article

Utility and Generalizability of Multistate, Population-Based Cancer Registry Data for Rural Cancer Surveillance Research in the United States

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
Volume 27, Issue 11, Pages 1252-1260

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-1087

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute [1P20CA192987-01A1, 1P20CA192966-01A1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

More than 46 million Americans live in rural areas, but rural populations remain relatively understudied in cancer disparities research. However, several analyses of multistate cancer registry data that describe the rural cancer incidence burden have been recently published. In light of this, our article aims to characterize the utility and generalizability of multistate, population-based cancer registry datasets for rural cancer surveillance research. First, we describe the accessibility, geographic coverage, available variables, and strengths and weaknesses of five data sources. Second, we evaluate two of these data sources-the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) public use dataset (93% population coverage) and the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) 18 dataset (28% population coverage)-on their characterization of rural-urban cancer incidence rates and sociodemographic representation. The five data sources varied in geographic coverage and extent of available variables. SEER 18's cancer rates sociodemographic representation differed from the more geographically representative NAACCR data. We suggest that SEEK increase its geographic coverage to improve their generalizability and to take advantage of their utility to assess disparities along the cancer control continuum. We also suggest that non-SEER data sources be utilized more frequently to capitalize on their extensive geographic coverage. (C) 2018 AACR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available