The National Cancer Database Conforms to the Standardized Framework for Registry and Data Quality

Bryan E Palis; Lauren M Janczewski; Amanda E Browner; Joseph Cotler; Leticia Nogueira; Lisa C Richardson; Vicki Benard; Reda J Wilson; Nadine Walker; Ryan M McCabe; Daniel J Boffa; Heidi Nelson

doi:10.1245/s10434-024-15393-8

The National Cancer Database Conforms to the Standardized Framework for Registry and Data Quality

Ann Surg Oncol. 2024 May 8. doi: 10.1245/s10434-024-15393-8. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ American College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL, USA. bpalis@facs.org.
² American College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL, USA.
³ American Cancer Society, Atlanta, USA.
⁴ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, USA.
⁵ National Cancer Registrars Association, Alexandria, USA.
⁶ Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, USA.
⁷ Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.

PMID: 38717542
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-024-15393-8

Abstract

Background: Standardization of procedures for data abstraction by cancer registries is fundamental for cancer surveillance, clinical and policy decision-making, hospital benchmarking, and research efforts. The objective of the current study was to evaluate adherence to the four components (completeness, comparability, timeliness, and validity) defined by Bray and Parkin that determine registries' ability to carry out these activities to the hospital-based National Cancer Database (NCDB).

Methods: Tbis study used data from U.S. Cancer Statistics, the official federal cancer statistics and joint effort between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which includes data from National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) to evaluate NCDB completeness between 2016 and 2020. The study evaluated comparability of case identification and coding procedures. It used Commission on Cancer (CoC) standards from 2022 to assess timeliness and validity.

Results: Completeness was demonstrated with a total of 6,828,507 cases identified within the NCDB, representing 73.7% of all cancer cases nationwide. Comparability was followed using standardized and international guidelines on coding and classification procedures. For timeliness, hospital compliance with timely data submission was 92.7%. Validity criteria for re-abstracting, recording, and reliability procedures across hospitals demonstrated 94.2% compliance. Additionally, data validity was shown by a 99.1% compliance with histologic verification standards, a 93.6% assessment of pathologic synoptic reporting, and a 99.1% internal consistency of staff credentials.

Conclusion: The NCDB is characterized by a high level of case completeness and comparability with uniform standards for data collection, and by hospitals with high compliance, timely data submission, and high rates of compliance with validity standards for registry and data quality evaluation.

Keywords: Comparability; Coverage; NCDB; Quality; Registry; Standardization; Timeliness; Validity.