Cancer registry in Iran: A brief overview

Cancer registry is an important tool for any successful cancer control program. The first formal cancer related data from Iran were published in 1956. In 1969, observations documenting a high incidence of esophageal cancer in the Caspian Littoral, urged researchers to set up the first population-based cancer registry in this region. This cancer registry was established jointly by University of Tehran and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). In 1976, another cancer registry started its activities in Fars Province. In 1984, the Parliament passed a bill mandating the report of all tissues "diagnosed or suspected as cancer tissue" to the Ministry of Health. While only 18% of all estimated cancer cases were reported in first reports, this rate increased to 81% in 2005 In 1998, Tehran Population-Based Cancer Registry started to collect data from cases of cancer referred to the treatment and diagnostic facilities throughout the Tehran metropolis. Digestive Disease Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, established four new population-based cancer registries in Northern Iran and another in Kerman Province in the south. These five provinces have a total population of about 9.5 million, and constitute about 16% of the total population of Iran. While the pathology-based cancer registration is in place, we hope that the addition of the population-based cancer registries, and establishment of new registries in poorly-covered areas, will improve cancer reporting in the country

The experience of accommodating privacy restrictions during implementation of a large-scale surveillance study of an osteoporosis medication.

PurposeTo explore whether privacy restrictions developed to protect patients have complicated research within a 15-year surveillance study conducted with US cancer registries.MethodsData from enrolling 27 cancer registries over a 10-year period were examined to describe the amount of time needed to obtain study approval. We also analyzed the proportion of patients that completed a research interview out of the total reported by the registries and examined factors thought to influence this measure.ResultsThe average length of the research review process from submission to approval of the research was 7 months (range, <1 to 24 months), and it took 6 months or more to obtain approval of the research at 41% of the cancer registries. Most registries (78%) required additional permission steps to gain access to patients for research. After adjustment for covariates, the interview response proportion was 110% greater (ratio of response proportion = 2.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.3, 3.3) when the least restrictive versus the most restrictive permission steps were required. An interview was more often completed for patients (or proxies) if patients were alive, within a year of being diagnosed, or identified earlier in the study.ConclusionsLengthy research review processes increased the time between diagnosis and provision of patient information to the researcher. Requiring physician permission for access to patients was associated with lower subject participation. A single national point of entry for use of cancer registry data in health research is worthy of consideration to make the research approval process efficient. © 2016 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Cancer recording and mortality in the General Practice Research Database and linked cancer registries.

PURPOSE: Large electronic datasets are increasingly being used to evaluate healthcare delivery. The aim of this study was to compare information held by cancer registries with that of the General Practice Research Database (GPRD). METHODS: A convenience sample of 101 020 patients aged 40+ years drawn from GPRD formed the primary data source. This cohort was derived from a larger sample originally established for a cohort study of diabetes. GPRD records were linked with those from cancer registries in the National Cancer Data Repository (NCDR). Concordance between the two datasets was then evaluated. For cases recorded only on one dataset, validation was sought from other datasets (Hospital Episode Statistics and death registration) and by detailed analysis of a subset of GPRD records. RESULTS: A total of 5797 cancers (excluding non-melanomatous skin cancer) were recorded on GPRD. Of these cases, 4830 were also recorded on NCDR (concordance rate of 83.3%). Of the 976 cases recorded on GPRD but not on NCDR, 528 were present also in the hospital records or death certificates. Of the 341 cases recorded on NCDR but not on GPRD, 307 were recorded in these other two datasets. Rates of concordance varied by cancer type. Cancer registries recorded larger numbers of patients with lung, colorectal, and pancreatic cancers, whereas GPRD recorded more haematological cancers and melanomas. As expected, GPRD recorded significantly more non-melanomatous skin cancer. Concordance decreased with increasing age. CONCLUSION: Although concordance levels were reasonably high, the findings from this study can be used to direct efforts for better recording in both datasets

Developing National Cancer Registration in Developing Countries - Case Study of the Nigerian National System of Cancer Registries.

The epidemiological transition in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has given rise to a concomitant increase in the incidence of non-communicable diseases including cancers. Worldwide, cancer registries have been shown to be critical for the determination of cancer burden, conduct of research, and in the planning and implementation of cancer control measures. Cancer registration though vital is often neglected in SSA owing to competing demands for resources for healthcare. We report the implementation of a system for representative nation-wide cancer registration in Nigeria - the Nigerian National System of Cancer Registries (NSCR). The NSCR coordinates the activities of cancer registries in Nigeria, strengthens existing registries, establishes new registries, complies and analyses data, and makes these freely available to researchers and policy makers. We highlight the key challenges encountered in implementing this strategy and how they were overcome. This report serves as a guide for other low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) wishing to expand cancer registration coverage in their countries and highlights the training, mentoring, scientific and logistic support, and advocacy that are crucial to sustaining cancer registration programs in LMIC

The Evolution of AIFA Registries to Support Managed Entry Agreements for Orphan Medicinal Products in Italy

Italy has a well-established prominent system of national registries to support managed entry agreements (MEAs), monitoring innovative medicinal products (MPs) with clinical as well as economic uncertainties to ensure appropriate use and best value for money. The technological architecture of the registries is funded by pharmaceutical companies, but fully governed by the national medicines agency (AIFA). A desktop analysis was undertaken of data over a 15-year timeframe of all AIFA indication-based registries and associated EMA information. The characteristics of registries were evaluated, comparing orphan MPs vs. all MPs exploring cancer and non-cancer indications. OMP (orphan medicinal product) registries’ type vs. AIFA innovation status and EMA approval was reviewed. Of the 283 registries, 182 are appropriateness registries (35.2% relate to OMPs, with an almost equal split of cancer vs. non-cancer for OMPs and MPs), 35 include financial-based agreements [20% OMPs (2 non-cancer, 5 cancer)], and 60 registries are payment by result agreements [23.3% OMPs (4 non-cancer, 10 cancer)]. Most OMPs (53/88) came through the normal regulatory route. With the strengthening of the system for evaluation of innovation, fewer outcomes-based registries have been instigated. AIFA has overcome many of the challenges experienced with MEA through developing an integrated national web-based data collection system: the challenge that remains for AIFA is to move from using the system for individual patient decisions about treatment to reviewing the wealth of data it now holds to optimize healthcare

Nordic Cancer Registries - an overview of their procedures and data comparability

Background: The Nordic Cancer Registries are among the oldest population-based registries in the world, with more than 60 years of complete coverage of what is now a combined population of 26 million. However, despite being the source of a substantial number of studies, there is no published paper comparing the different registries. Therefore, we did a systematic review to identify similarities and dissimilarities of the Nordic Cancer Registries, which could possibly explain some of the differences in cancer incidence rates across these countries.Methods: We describe and compare here the core characteristics of each of the Nordic Cancer Registries: (i) data sources; (ii) registered disease entities and deviations from IARC multiple cancer coding rules; (iii) variables and related coding systems. Major changes over time are described and discussed.Results: All Nordic Cancer Registries represent a high quality standard in terms of completeness and accuracy of the registered data.Conclusions: Even though the information in the Nordic Cancer Registries in general can be considered more similar than any other collection of data from five different countries, there are numerous differences in registration routines, classification systems and inclusion of some tumors. These differences are important to be aware of when comparing time trends in the Nordic countries.Peer reviewe

An overall strategy based on regression models to estimate relative survival and model the effects of prognostic factors in cancer survival studies.

Relative survival provides a measure of the proportion of patients dying from the disease under study without requiring the knowledge of the cause of death. We propose an overall strategy based on regression models to estimate the relative survival and model the effects of potential prognostic factors. The baseline hazard was modelled until 10 years follow-up using parametric continuous functions. Six models including cubic regression splines were considered and the Akaike Information Criterion was used to select the final model. This approach yielded smooth and reliable estimates of mortality hazard and allowed us to deal with sparse data taking into account all the available information. Splines were also used to model simultaneously non-linear effects of continuous covariates and time-dependent hazard ratios. This led to a graphical representation of the hazard ratio that can be useful for clinical interpretation. Estimates of these models were obtained by likelihood maximization. We showed that these estimates could be also obtained using standard algorithms for Poisson regression

Collaborating with Central Cancer Registries for Public Health Genomics

Central cancer registries make up a comprehensive national network of population-based cancer surveillance to monitor cancer cases at local, state, and national levels. These registries provide complete, timely, and quality cancer data that can be used to plan, implement, and evaluate cancer prevention and control programs. Cancer registries can be used to identify populations that would benefit from enhanced cancer screening and outreach efforts. This guide provides examples of how state health departments have collaborated with cancer registries to inform and implement activities in cancer genomics to meet the special needs of people at risk of hereditary cancers.CS324959-

Cancer Epidemiol

BackgroundThe key aims of this study were to identify sources of support for cancer registry activities, to quantify resource use and estimate costs to operate registries in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) at different stages of development across three continents.MethodsUsing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention\u2019s (CDC\u2019s) International Registry Costing Tool (IntRegCosting Tool), cost and resource use data were collected from eight population-based cancer registries, including one in a low-income country (Uganda [Kampala)]), two in lower to middle-income countries (Kenya [Nairobi] and India [Mumbai]), and five in an upper to middle-income country (Colombia [Pasto, Barranquilla, Bucaramanga, Manizales and Cali cancer registries]).ResultsHost institution contributions accounted for 30%\u201370% of total investment in cancer registry activities. Cancer registration involves substantial fixed cost and labor. Labor accounts for more than 50% of all expenditures across all registries. The cost per cancer case registered in low-income and lower-middle-income countries ranged from US $3.77 to US$15.62 (United States dollars). In Colombia, an upper to middle-income country, the cost per case registered ranged from US $41.28 to US$113.39. Registries serving large populations (over 15 million inhabitants) had a lower cost per inhabitant (less than US $0.01 in Mumbai, India) than registries serving small populations (under 500,000 inhabitants) [US$0.22] in Pasto, Colombia.ConclusionThis study estimates the total cost and resources used for cancer registration across several countries in the limited-resource setting, and provides cancer registration stakeholders and registries-with opportunities to identify cost savings and efficiency improvements. Our results suggest that cancer registration involve substantial fixed costs and labor, and that partnership with other institutions is critical for the operation and sustainability of cancer registries in limited resource settings. Although we included registries from a variety of limited-resource areas, information from eight registries in four countries may not be large enough to capture all the potential differences among the registries in limited-resource settings.20162018-03-08T00:00:00ZCC999999/Intramural CDC HHS/United States27793574PMC5842435660

Oral cancer in Libya and development of regional oral cancer registries: A review

AbstractThe aims of this paper are three-fold: (1) to summarize the current epidemiological data on oral cancer in Libya as reported in the published literature and as compared to other national oral cancer rates in the region; (2) to present both the history of the early development, and future goals, of population-based oral cancer tumor registries in Libya as they partner with the more established regional and international population-based cancer tumor registries; and, (3) to offer recommendations that will likely be required in the near future if these nascent, population-based Libyan oral cancer registries are to establish themselves as on-going registries for describing the oral cancer disease patterns and risk factors in Libya as well as for prevention and treatment. This comprehensive literature review revealed that the current baseline incidence of oral cancer in Libya is similar to those of other North Africa countries and China, but is relatively low compared to the United Kingdom, the United States, and India. The recently established Libyan National Cancer Registry Program, initiated in 2007, while envisioning five cooperating regional cancer registries, continues to operate at a relatively suboptimal level. Lack of adequate levels of national funding continue to plague its development…and the accompanying quality of service that could be provided to the Libyan people