National Program of Cancer Registries
Public Information Data
Supporting Technical Reference Material
Registry Eligibility Criteria
Cancer incidence data included in this report are
from statewide or metropolitan area cancer
registries that have high-quality cancer incidence
data for 2002 as demonstrated by meeting the
following data quality criteria for all cancer sites
combined:
-
Case ascertainment is 90% or more complete.
The registry data include at least 90% of
the expected, unduplicated cases where the
expected cases are estimated by using
methods developed by NAACCR.17,18,21,36
Because some cancer patients receive
diagnostic or treatment services at more
than one reporting facility, cancer
registries perform a procedure known as
"unduplication" to ensure that each
cancer case is counted only once.
-
No more than 5% of cases are ascertained
solely on the basis of a death certificate. The
proportion of cases ascertained solely on
the basis of a death certificate, with no
other information on the case available
after the registry has completed a routine
procedure known as "death clearance and
followback," is another measure of the
completeness of case ascertainment.
-
No more than 3% of cases are missing
information on sex.
-
No more than 3% of cases are missing
information on age.
-
No more than 5% of cases are missing
information on race.
-
At least 97% of the registry's records passed a
set of single-field and interfield computerized
edits. Computerized edits are computer
programs that test the validity and logic
of data components.
For example, if
(a) a patient received a diagnosis of cancer in
1999,
(b) the patient's age was reported as
80 years, and
(c) the patient's year of birth
was reported as 1942, a computerized edit
could, without human intervention, identify
these components as incompatible.
The computerized edits applied to the data in
this report were designed by the SEER
Program for use by SEER registries.
During the 1990s, these edits were
expanded and incorporated into NAACCR
standards
(http://www.naaccr.org) and
into the EDITS software designed and
maintained by CDC
(http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/edits/edits.htm).
Appendix I, Table I.1,
shows state and metropolitan area-specific measures
for the data quality criteria used to determine
which registries' data were eligible for inclusion in this report.
Source:
U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics:
2002 Incidence and Mortality. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute; 2005.
(Page 7)
Appendix I Table I.1
Table I.1: Achievement of Selected Data Quality Criteria* by State and SEER
Metropolitan Area Cancer Registries, 2002
Only data from the shaded states and metropolitan areas are included in
United States Cancer Statistics: 2002 Incidence and Mortality.**
% Case % Passing % % Missing % Missing % Missing
Cancer Registry Ascertainment*** Edits+ DCOs^ Sex Race Age
Alabama >=95 100.0 2.1 0.00 0.43 0.00
Alaska >=95 100.0 0.3 0.00 1.39 0.00
Arizona 90-94 100.0 2.0 0.00 1.57 0.02
Arkansas <90 99.9 0.1 0.02 0.92 0.00
California >=95 100.0 1.2 0.01 1.89 0.03
Greater Bay# >=95 100.0 1.1 0.02 1.86 0.02
Los Angeles >=95 100.0 0.8 0.01 2.29 0.03
Colorado >=95 100.0 2.8 0.00 2.76 0.05
Connecticut >=95 100.0 1.4 0.02 0.87 0.00
Delaware 90-94 100.0 1.2 0.00 1.35 0.00
D.C. 90-94 99.5 3.1 0.22 1.74 0.04
Florida >=95 100.0 2.9 0.02 0.56 0.00
Georgia >=95 100.0 2.3 0.00 0.59 0.00
Atlanta >=95 100.0 1.2 0.00 0.62 0.00
Hawaii >=95 100.0 0.8 0.00 3.37 0.00
Idaho >=95 100.0 2.7 0.00 0.39 0.00
Illinois >=95 100.0 2.9 0.00 1.39 0.00
Indiana >95 100.0 2.4 0.00 0.89 0.00
Iowa >=95 100.0 1.5 0.00 2.02 0.00
Kansas 90-94 100.0 0.4 0.00 2.53 0.00
Kentucky >=95 100.0 0.8 0.00 1.27 0.00
Louisiana >=95 100.0 1.2 0.00 0.26 0.00
Maine >=95 100.0 1.4 0.00 0.45 0.00
Maryland >=95 100.0 0.7 0.00 0.01 0.06
Massachusetts >=95 100.0 1.6 0.00 1.26 0.00
Michigan >=95 100.0 1.1 0.05 2.27 0.01
Detroit >=95 100.0 1.1 0.02 2.35 0.02
Minnesota >=95 100.0 1.6 0.00 2.16 0.00
Mississippi
Missouri >=95 100.0 2.8 0.00 0.40 0.01
Montana 90-94 100.0 4.9 0.00 2.47 0.00
Nebraska >=95 100.0 2.1 0.00 2.32 0.00
Nevada >=95 100.0 1.5 0.00 1.18 0.01
New Hampshire >=95 100.0 1.1 0.09 1.99 0.00
New Jersey >=95 100.0 1.6 0.02 1.53 0.02
New Mexico >=95 100.0 2.0 0.00 0.00 0.01
New York >=95 100.0 1.6 0.00 2.19 0.00
North Carolina 90-94 100.0 0.5 0.02 0.26 0.00
North Dakota 90-94 100.0 1.6 0.00 0.03 0.00
Ohio 90-94 100.0 3.1 0.00 3.68 0.00
Oklahoma >=95 100.0 2.6 0.00 0.82 0.03
Oregon >=95 100.0 1.0 0.00 2.51 0.00
Pennsylvania >=95 100.0 2.0 0.00 1.41 0.01
Rhode Island >=95 100.0 2.2 0.00 0.51 0.00
South Carolina >=95 100.0 2.3 0.01 0.99 0.00
Continued Appendix I Table I.1
Table I.1: Achievement of Selected Data Quality Criteria* by State and SEER
Metropolitan Area Cancer Registries, 2002
Only data from the shaded states and metropolitan areas are included in
United States Cancer Statistics: 2002 Incidence and Mortality.**
% Case % Passing % % Missing % Missing % Missing
Cancer Registry Ascertainment*** Edits+ DCOs^ Sex Race Age
South Dakota >=95 100.0 NDC## 0.00 3.26 0.00
Tennessee
Texas 90-94 100.0 4.0 0.00 1.17 0.00
Utah >=95 100.0 0.3 0.00 0.00 0.01
Vermont >=95 100.0 1.3 0.06 0.49 0.00
Virginia <90 100.0 0.9 0.00 0.73 0.00
Washington >=95 100.0 0.4 0.00 2.75 0.00
Seattle-Puget Sound >=95 100.0 0.5 0.00 0.45 0.00
West Virginia >=95 100.0 2.0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wisconsin >=95 100.0 3.0 0.01 0.61 0.00
Wyoming
Note: Cancer incidence data included in this report are from statewide or metropolitan area cancer registries that meet the
following data quality criteria for all cancer sites combined:
Case ascertainment is 90% or more complete.
No more than 5% of cases are ascertained solely on the basis of a death certificate.
No more than 3% of cases are missing information on sex.
No more than 3% of cases are missing information on age.
No more that 5% of cases are missing information on race.
At least 97% of the registry's records passed a set of single-field and interfield computerized edits.
Notes
* National Program of Cancer Registries (including California, Kentucky, Louisiana, and New Jersey) data quality based
on January 2005 data submission; SEER data quality based on November 2004 data submission.
** Registry members of the National Program of Cancer Registries whose data are not included in this report chose
whether to have their data quality information listed.
*** Completeness of case ascertainment was estimated by methods developed by the North American Association of Central
Cancer Registries.
+ Computerized edits test the validity and logic of data components reported for selected items.
^ DCOs = death certificate only cases; that is, cancer cases ascertained solely on the basis of a death certificate after the
registry has completed a routine procedure known as death clearance and followback.
# Greater Bay includes San Francisco-Oakland and San Jose-Monterey Registries.
## NDC = no death clearance; registry did not conduct death clearance and followback.
SEER = Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results.
Sources:
Howe HL. Conclusions of the Workgroup for High-Quality Criteria for Data Use: The NAACCR Narrative. Springfield,
IL: North American Association of Central Cancer Registries; 2001.
Tucker TC, Howe HL, Weir HK. Certification of population-based cancer registries. Journal of Registry Management
1999;26(1):24-27.
Source:
U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics:
2002 Incidence and Mortality. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute; 2005.
(Pages 678-9, Appendix I, pages I2-3)
|