☆ 4.3 Article

Validity of self-reported cancer: Comparison between self-report versus cancer registry records in the Geelong Osteoporosis Study

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY (2020)

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY

卷 68, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD

DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2020.101790

关键词

Cancer; Self-report; Epidemiologic studies; Registries; Sensitivity and specificity; Neoplasms; Health surveys; Regional patients

类别

Oncology Public, Environmental & Occupational Health

资金

Victorian Health Promotion Foundation [91-0095]
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia [251638, 299831, 628582]
IMPACT SRC at Deakin University
NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellowships [APP1059660, APP1156072]
NHMRC Career Development Fellowship [1064272]
NHMRC Investigator grant [1174060]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Protocol

社区支持

Reagent

社区支持

摘要

Background: Determining the validity of self-reported data is important. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of self-reported cancer and investigate factors associated with accurate reporting in men and women. Methods: Study participants (n = 1727) from the Geelong Osteoporosis Study, located in south-eastern Australia, were utilised. Self-reported cancer data were compared to Victorian Cancer Registry records. Age, socioeconomic status (SES), education and time between cancer diagnosis and study appointment were investigated as factors associated with accuracy of self-report. Results: There were 142 participants who self-reported a cancer and 135 with a VCR record. Comparing self-report to any registry record, sensitivity was 63.7 %, specificity 96.5 %, PPV 60.6 %, NPV 96.9 %, and overall agreement ic0.588. Comparing exact-match records, sensitivity was 58.8 %, specificity 95.5 %, PPV 49.3 %, NPV 96.9 % and overall agreement ic0.499. In logistic regression models, post-secondary education was independently associated with accuracy of any (OR 1.72, 95 % CI 1.10 - 2.70) and exact-match (OR 1.59, 95 % CI 1.05 - 2.42) self-report, compared to cancer registry record. For any cancer, being aged > 70 years was inversely associated with accuracy (OR 0.24, 95 % CI 0.15 - 0.38). Likewise, for matched cancer reporting, those aged 60 - 70 years (OR 0.51, 95 %CI 0.30 - 0.88) and > 70 years (OR 0.23, 95 % CI 0.15 - 0.35) were less accurate. No other significant associations were detected. Conclusion: Results suggest moderate agreement between self-report and registry data for any cancer among men and women. However, when comparing self-report to registry data for exact-match cancer type, level of overall agreement deteriorated. Self-report cancer data may be acceptable for determining a history of cancer, although, is less accurate in identifying history of specific cancer types documented in registry-based data.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者

点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

主要评分

4.3

评分不足

次要评分

新颖性

重要性

科学严谨性

评价这篇论文

Diagnostic Performance of the 2018 EASL vs. LI-RADS for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using CT and MRI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

Jaeseung Shin, Sunyoung Lee, Ja Kyung Yoon, Yun Ho Roh

Summary: This study aimed to compare the performance of the 2018 European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria and the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) criteria for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The results showed that there were no significant differences in sensitivity and specificity between the EASL criteria and LI-RADS criteria. Subgroup analyses also showed no significant differences for different size observations.

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING (2023)