Browse > Article

Evaluation of Tumor Registry Validity in Samsung Medical Center Radiation Oncology Department  

Park Won (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Huh Seung Jae (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Kim Dae Yong (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Shin Seong Soo (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Ahn Yong Chan (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Lim Do Hoon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Kim Seonwoo (Biostatistics Unit, Samsung Biomedical Research Institute)
Publication Information
Radiation Oncology Journal / v.22, no.1, 2004 , pp. 33-39 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose : A tumor registry system for the patients treated by radiotherapy at Samsung Medical Center since the opening of a hospital at 1994 was employed. In this study, the tumor registry system was introduced and the validity of the tumor registration was analyzed. Materials and Methods: The tumor registry system was composed of three parts: patient demographic, diagnostic, and treatment Information. All data were input in a screen using a mouse only. Among the 10,000 registered cases in the tumor registry system until Aug, 2002, 199 were randomly selected and their registration data were compared with the patients' medical records. Results : Total input errors were detected on 15 cases (7.5%). There were 8 error items In the part relating to diagnostic Information: tumor site 3, pathology 2, AJCC staging 2 and performance status 1. In the part relating to treatment information there were 9 mistaken items: combination treatment 4, the date of initial treatment 3 and radiation completeness 2. According to the assignment doctor, the error ratio was consequently variable. The doctors who 010 no double-checks showed higher errors than those that 010 (15.6%:3.7%). Conclusion: Our tumor registry had errors within 2% for each Item. Although the overall data qualify was high, further improvement might be achieved through promoting sincerity, continuing training, periodic validity tests and keeping double-checks. Also, some items associated with the hospital Information system will be input automatically In the next step.
Keywords
Tumor registry; Quality control; Radiation treatment;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Haenszel W, Curnen MG. The first fifty years of the Connecticut tumor resgistry: reminiscences and prospects. Yale K Bioi Med 1986;59:475-484
2 Bulow S. Results of national registration of familial adenomatous polyposis. Gut 2003;52:742-746   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Cotterchio M, McKeown-Eyssen G, Sutherland H, et al. Ontario famial colon cancer registry: methods and first-year response rates. Chronic Dis Can 2000;21:81-86   PUBMED
4 Shin MH, Ahn YO. Evaluation of the completeness and validity of the registration in the implementation study of seoul cancer registry (ISSCR). Korean J Prev Med 1994;27:735-745
5 Huh SJ, Ahn YC, Lim DH, et al. Radiation oncology image chart and digital radiotherapy record system at samsung medical center. J Korean Soc Ther Radiol Oncol 1994;12:331-336
6 Lee KN. Cancer registry program at the Cancer institute in Korea University Medical Center. J Korean Soc Med Inform 1999;5:125-130
7 Brewster DH, Stockton D, Harvey J, Mackay M. Reliability of cancer registration data in Scotland, 1997. Eur J Cancer 2002;38:414-417   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Devesa SS, Pollack ES, Young JL Jr. Assessing the validity of observed cancer incidence trends. Am J Epidemiol 1984;119:274-291   DOI   PUBMED
9 Brewster D, Crichton J, Muir CS. How accurate are Scottish cancer registration data? Br J Cancer 1994;70:954-959
10 Ahn YC, Kim DY, Hun SJ, et al. Development of comprehensive radiation oncology management system in samsung medical center. In : Lemke HU, Vannier MW, Inamura K and Farman AG, eds. Computer assisted radiology and surgery. 1 st ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1998;271-275
11 Zippin C, Lum D. Study of completeness of the surveillance, epidemiology and end results (SEER) program case ascertained by hospital size and casefinding source. Health Rep 1993;5:87-90   PUBMED
12 Belinson JL, McClure MS, Deutsch RA. A new automated registry and clinical research system and its application to gynecologic oncology patients. Gynecol Oncol 1987;27:264-268   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Merrill RM, Capocaccia R, Feuer EJ, Mariotto A. Cancer prevalence estimates based on tumor registry data in the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) program. Int J Epidemiol 2000;29:197-207   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Belinson JL, McClure MS, Deutsch RA. A new automated tumor registry and clinical research system and its application to gynecologic oncology patients. Gynecol Oncol 1987;27:264-268   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Lim HS, Lee CW, Lee MY. Accuracy about cancer registry data of Daegu Metropolitan City in 1997-1998 by reabstracting method. J Korean Soc Med Inform 2002;8:11-23
16 Woo ZH, Hong YC, Oh JH, Kim WC, Pu YK, Kim SI. The implementation study of incheon cancer registry (ICR). Incheon Cancer Registry Office 2002
17 Kim DY, Ahn YC, Huh SJ, Choi DR. What is an ideal tumor registry in radiation oncology in Korea. computer and network based radiotherapy 199. Samsung Medical Center 1999:61-66
18 Davis FG, McCarthy BJ, Berger MS. Centralized databases available for describing primary brain tumor incidence, survival, and treatment; central brain tumor registry of the united states; surveillance, epidemiology, and end results; and national cancer data base. Neuro-oncol 1999;1:205-211   DOI   ScienceOn