Completeness and correctness of registration of renal pelvic and ureteral cancer in the Swedish Cancer Registry

Sten Holmäng, Susanne Amsler-Nordin, Kerstin Carlson, Erik Holmberg, Sonny Lennart Johansson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective. To study the completeness and correctness of the Swedish Cancer Registry (SCR) for renal pelvic and ureteral carcinomas diagnosed in western Sweden. Material and methods. We performed a retrospective clinical and histopathological study of 939 patients in the SCR with a diagnosis of a renal pelvic or ureteral carcinoma between 1971 and 1998 and of 54 patients with a diagnosis of tumors in multiple locations in the urinary tract. In addition, we reviewed our earlier bladder cancer studies to assess whether patients with upper urinary tract tumors had been notified to the SCR. Results. There were 68 false-positive patients (7.2%) out of 939 in the SCR. The commonest diagnoses were other urological malignancies (n=46) and no malignancy at all (n=15). There were five false-positives (9.3%) out of 54 patients in the file with tumors in multiple locations. Twenty-eight patients with renal pelvic or ureteral carcinoma were identified in our earlier studies but not found in the SCR. Most discrepancies were attributable to inadequate or missing notification by the urologist and registration errors. Conclusions. The completeness and correctness of the registration of renal pelvic and ureteral carcinomas are unsatisfactory but in line with registries for some other primary sites. The notification of upper urinary tract tumors among patients with a history of bladder cancer was poor, in particular in patients not treated with surgery. Improved communication between reporting sources and the registry is needed. Clinical and histopathological reviews seem necessary in studies based on the SCR.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)12-17
Number of pages6
JournalScandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology
Volume42
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 29 2008

Fingerprint

Ureteral Neoplasms
Pelvic Neoplasms
Kidney Neoplasms
Registries
Neoplasms
Urinary Tract
Carcinoma
Kidney
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
Sweden

Keywords

  • Neoplasm
  • Registration
  • Renal pelvis
  • Ureter
  • Validity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nephrology
  • Urology

Cite this

Completeness and correctness of registration of renal pelvic and ureteral cancer in the Swedish Cancer Registry. / Holmäng, Sten; Amsler-Nordin, Susanne; Carlson, Kerstin; Holmberg, Erik; Johansson, Sonny Lennart.

In: Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology, Vol. 42, No. 1, 29.01.2008, p. 12-17.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Holmäng, Sten ; Amsler-Nordin, Susanne ; Carlson, Kerstin ; Holmberg, Erik ; Johansson, Sonny Lennart. / Completeness and correctness of registration of renal pelvic and ureteral cancer in the Swedish Cancer Registry. In: Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology. 2008 ; Vol. 42, No. 1. pp. 12-17.
@article{ee459252eaac43eda660ee443c780c3d,
title = "Completeness and correctness of registration of renal pelvic and ureteral cancer in the Swedish Cancer Registry",
abstract = "Objective. To study the completeness and correctness of the Swedish Cancer Registry (SCR) for renal pelvic and ureteral carcinomas diagnosed in western Sweden. Material and methods. We performed a retrospective clinical and histopathological study of 939 patients in the SCR with a diagnosis of a renal pelvic or ureteral carcinoma between 1971 and 1998 and of 54 patients with a diagnosis of tumors in multiple locations in the urinary tract. In addition, we reviewed our earlier bladder cancer studies to assess whether patients with upper urinary tract tumors had been notified to the SCR. Results. There were 68 false-positive patients (7.2{\%}) out of 939 in the SCR. The commonest diagnoses were other urological malignancies (n=46) and no malignancy at all (n=15). There were five false-positives (9.3{\%}) out of 54 patients in the file with tumors in multiple locations. Twenty-eight patients with renal pelvic or ureteral carcinoma were identified in our earlier studies but not found in the SCR. Most discrepancies were attributable to inadequate or missing notification by the urologist and registration errors. Conclusions. The completeness and correctness of the registration of renal pelvic and ureteral carcinomas are unsatisfactory but in line with registries for some other primary sites. The notification of upper urinary tract tumors among patients with a history of bladder cancer was poor, in particular in patients not treated with surgery. Improved communication between reporting sources and the registry is needed. Clinical and histopathological reviews seem necessary in studies based on the SCR.",
keywords = "Neoplasm, Registration, Renal pelvis, Ureter, Validity",
author = "Sten Holm{\"a}ng and Susanne Amsler-Nordin and Kerstin Carlson and Erik Holmberg and Johansson, {Sonny Lennart}",
year = "2008",
month = "1",
day = "29",
doi = "10.1080/00365590701520024",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "12--17",
journal = "Scandinavian Journal of Urology",
issn = "2168-1805",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Completeness and correctness of registration of renal pelvic and ureteral cancer in the Swedish Cancer Registry

AU - Holmäng, Sten

AU - Amsler-Nordin, Susanne

AU - Carlson, Kerstin

AU - Holmberg, Erik

AU - Johansson, Sonny Lennart

PY - 2008/1/29

Y1 - 2008/1/29

N2 - Objective. To study the completeness and correctness of the Swedish Cancer Registry (SCR) for renal pelvic and ureteral carcinomas diagnosed in western Sweden. Material and methods. We performed a retrospective clinical and histopathological study of 939 patients in the SCR with a diagnosis of a renal pelvic or ureteral carcinoma between 1971 and 1998 and of 54 patients with a diagnosis of tumors in multiple locations in the urinary tract. In addition, we reviewed our earlier bladder cancer studies to assess whether patients with upper urinary tract tumors had been notified to the SCR. Results. There were 68 false-positive patients (7.2%) out of 939 in the SCR. The commonest diagnoses were other urological malignancies (n=46) and no malignancy at all (n=15). There were five false-positives (9.3%) out of 54 patients in the file with tumors in multiple locations. Twenty-eight patients with renal pelvic or ureteral carcinoma were identified in our earlier studies but not found in the SCR. Most discrepancies were attributable to inadequate or missing notification by the urologist and registration errors. Conclusions. The completeness and correctness of the registration of renal pelvic and ureteral carcinomas are unsatisfactory but in line with registries for some other primary sites. The notification of upper urinary tract tumors among patients with a history of bladder cancer was poor, in particular in patients not treated with surgery. Improved communication between reporting sources and the registry is needed. Clinical and histopathological reviews seem necessary in studies based on the SCR.

AB - Objective. To study the completeness and correctness of the Swedish Cancer Registry (SCR) for renal pelvic and ureteral carcinomas diagnosed in western Sweden. Material and methods. We performed a retrospective clinical and histopathological study of 939 patients in the SCR with a diagnosis of a renal pelvic or ureteral carcinoma between 1971 and 1998 and of 54 patients with a diagnosis of tumors in multiple locations in the urinary tract. In addition, we reviewed our earlier bladder cancer studies to assess whether patients with upper urinary tract tumors had been notified to the SCR. Results. There were 68 false-positive patients (7.2%) out of 939 in the SCR. The commonest diagnoses were other urological malignancies (n=46) and no malignancy at all (n=15). There were five false-positives (9.3%) out of 54 patients in the file with tumors in multiple locations. Twenty-eight patients with renal pelvic or ureteral carcinoma were identified in our earlier studies but not found in the SCR. Most discrepancies were attributable to inadequate or missing notification by the urologist and registration errors. Conclusions. The completeness and correctness of the registration of renal pelvic and ureteral carcinomas are unsatisfactory but in line with registries for some other primary sites. The notification of upper urinary tract tumors among patients with a history of bladder cancer was poor, in particular in patients not treated with surgery. Improved communication between reporting sources and the registry is needed. Clinical and histopathological reviews seem necessary in studies based on the SCR.

KW - Neoplasm

KW - Registration

KW - Renal pelvis

KW - Ureter

KW - Validity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=38349124813&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=38349124813&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/00365590701520024

DO - 10.1080/00365590701520024

M3 - Article

VL - 42

SP - 12

EP - 17

JO - Scandinavian Journal of Urology

JF - Scandinavian Journal of Urology

SN - 2168-1805

IS - 1

ER -