Economic assessment of central cancer registry operations, Part III: Results from 5 programs (original) (raw)
Related papers
An Analysis of Cancer Registry Cost Data: Methodology and Results
PubMed, 2018
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention initiated an economic analysis of the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) in 2005 to estimate the true economic costs of operating a cancer registry, identify costs associated with registry activities, and evaluate the factors that may affect the efficiency of registry operations. We developed a Web-based NPCR cost assessment tool (NPCR-CAT) to collect activity-based cost data from all 48 NPCR registries. We collected data on registry funding, actual expenditures, and factors that may affect the efficiency of operating a central cancer registry. Key lessons learned during data collection and analysis include the importance of working closely with registry staff and balancing the need for standardized data elements with an understanding of individual registry characteristics. Our findings and lessons can be adapted to develop costing tools for other surveillance systems and cancer control programs, both domestically and internationally.
Economic Assessment of Central Cancer Registry Operations. Part I: Methods and Conceptual Framework
J Registry Manag
In this article, we report on the development of methods and a framework to guide the economic evaluation of central cancer registry operations. We used both quantitative and qualitative information collected from central cancer registries funded by the National Program of Cancer Registries to develop the framework. Several factors were identified that can influence the cost of registry operations: size of the geographic area served, quality of the hospital-based regis-tries, setting of the registry, local cost of living, presence of rural areas, years in operation, volume of cases, complexity of out-of-state case ascertainment, extent of consolidation of records to cases, and types of advanced activities performed. A range of state-level and central cancer registry-level factors may influence the cost and cost-effectiveness of registries. These findings will inform planned future economic data collection and cost and cost-effectiveness analyses of central cancer registries.
Estimating the cost of operating cancer registries: Experience in Colombia
Cancer Epidemiology, 2016
Background-Maintaining population-based registries requires adequate and sustained resources; however, to date there has been no systematic evaluation to identify the resource needs for cancer registration in most countries, including Colombia. A systematic assessment of the costs can quantify the funding required and identify processes to improve efficiency of cancer registries. Methods-The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) International Registry Costing Tool (IntRegCosting Tool) was tailored specifically for the Colombian registries and was used to collect resource use data from five regional population-based cancer registries: Barranquilla, Bucaramanga, Cali, Manizales, and Pasto. The registries provided cost data for the year 2013 and cancer cases corresponding to the year 2010. Results-We identified an almost threefold variation in the average cost per case (77,932 to 214,082 Colombian pesos or US 41toUS41 to US 41toUS113 in 2013) across the registries, but there were also substantial differences in data collection approaches, types of data collected, and activities performed. Cost per inhabitant varied between 95 and 415 Colombian pesos (US 0.05toUS0.05 to US 0.05toUS0.22). Between 20% and 45% of the total cost was due to fixed cost activities. Conclusions-The detailed economic information presented in this study constitutes a valuable source of activity-based cost data that registries can use to compare operations, assess key factors that lead to differences in cost per case, and identify potential approaches to improve efficiencies. Furthermore, the knowledge gained from studying the Colombian registries can help inform the planning and operations of other registries in the region.
Online Journal of Public Health Informatics, 2015
Cancer registry data collection involves, at a minimum, collecting data on demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment. A common, identified, and standardized set of data elements is needed to share data quickly and efficiently with consumers of this data. This project highlights the fact that, there is a need to develop common data elements; Surveys were developed for central cancer registries (CCRs) and cancer researchers (CRs) at NCI-designated Cancer Centers, in order to understand data needs. Survey questions were developed based on the project focus, an evaluation of the research registries and database responses, and systematic review of the literature. Questions covered the following topics: 1) Research, 2) Data collection, 3) Database/ repository, 4) Use of data, 5) Additional data items, 6) Data requests, 7) New data fields, and 8) Cancer registry data set. A review of the surveys indicates that all cancer registries’ data are used for public health surveillance, an...
2010
There is a need for fine tuned evaluation systems in oncology for a number of reasons including increasing cancer burden due to population ageing, selecting on of effective interventions to achieve the best results with limited resources, and producing of complementary evidence of the efficacy of the interventions. The cancer registry is a standard tool to monitor cancer burden in a population and is increasingly being used to perform evaluation studies. We developed an automated flexible system to overcome the actual limitations of data collection and expand the scope of cancer registries. The registration tool that we developed can effectively manage different data sources. Automatic importing of routinely available data from pathology archives, screening services, and hospital discharge records is going to reduce the time needed to produce data and also is going to allow the expansion of registered information. Direct real-time registration by clinicians is also ongoing. The new cancer registry features allow an important expansion of its scope (e.g. quick evaluation of health interventions). Even entirely new research questions may be addressed with high quality population-based data by identifying study aims and relevant variables upon discussions with health professionals.
Completeness and timeliness: Cancer registries could/should improve their performance
European Journal of Cancer, 2015
The mission of a cancer registry is to provide complete and reliable incidence data with a short delay. Methods for monitoring completeness and timeliness are available to registries ranging from less to more complex. We wanted to know which methods are currently in use among cancer registries and to compare results with those obtained in a previous survey conducted in year 2006. Methods We launched a new survey with questions on type of registry, completeness methods used and time and type of result dissemination. We sent the questionnaire to all general (GCR) and specialised (SCR) registries active in Europe, including the 27 countries of the European Union, the candidate members, Norway and Switzerland, from the list made available by the European Network of Cancer registries (ENCR). Results With a response rate of 65.8% among GCR and 58.3% among SCR, we obtained 116 registries (population covered: 280 millions) available for analysis. The most common methods used were trends comparison (79%), and mortality-incidence ratio (above 60%). More complex methods resulted less used: capture-recapture (30%), the flow method (18%), and MIAMOD/PIAMOD (14%). Median time for completing the incidence was 18 months, but with wide variation. Result dissemination delay was shorter, although more than one third (36.3%) declared to not publish their results on own, but only contributing to larger national or international data repositories and publications. Conclusions Cancer registries should further improve the practice of measuring their completeness and should shift from traditional to more modern quantitative methods. Words: 246
Cancer Epidemiology, 2016
All governments have approved the Global Monitoring Framework on Non-communicable Diseases (NCDs), which includes a commitment to reduce premature NCD (including cancer-related) deaths by 25% by 2025. The global monitoring framework requires WHO member states to collect cancer incidence, by type of cancer per 100,000 population-one of 25 indicators to monitor progress toward the 25 by 25 targets [1]. Population-based cancer registries are units that collect and report high quality data on cancer incidence. The data generated by population-based cancer registries are essential for informing health programs, policies and strategies regarding cancer screening and treatment, and for evaluating the impact of national programs for cancer prevention, screening, and treatment [2,3]. However, there are large differences in the existence, coverage and quality of cancer registration across ☆ The findings and conclusion of this presentation do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Economic evaluation of cancer registration in Europe
Journal of registry management, 2014
Little has been reported on costs of cancer registration, and standard indicators have not yet been identified. This study investigated costs and outcomes of a sample of 18 European registries covering a population of 58.8 million inhabitants. Through a questionnaire, we asked registries for real cost data including personnel, information technology (IT), and infrastructure. Staff costs were grouped by professional position and by activity performed. As outcomes, besides the production of current data, we considered publications in peer-reviewed journals (last 5 years' impact factor [IF]) and characteristics of registry websites. In our sample, the average cost of cancer registration per inhabitant was €0.27 at purchasing power standard (PPS) (range €0.03-€0.97), while the mean cost per case registered was €50.71 PPS (range €6-€213). Personnel costs accounted for an average of 79 percent of total resources. Resources spent in routine activities (an average of 51 percent, range 2...
JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2021
PURPOSEThe CDC’s National Program of Cancer Registries has expanded the use of electronic reporting to collect more timely information on newly diagnosed cancers. The adoption, implementation, and use of electronic reporting vary significantly among central cancer registries. We identify factors affecting the adoption of electronic reporting among these registries.METHODSDirectors and data managers of nine National Program of Cancer Registries took part in separate 1-hour telephone interviews in early 2019. Directors were asked about their registry’s key data quality goals; staffing, resources, and tools used to aid processes; their definition and self-perception of electronic reporting adoption; key helpers and challenges; and cost and sustainability implications for adoption of electronic reporting. Data managers were asked about specific data collection processes, software applications, electronic reporting adoption and self-perception, information technology infrastructure, and helpers and challenges to data collection and processing, data quality, and sustainability of approach.RESULTSLarger registries identified organizational capacity and technical expertise as key aides. Other help for implementing electronic reporting processes came from partnerships, funding availability, management support, legislation, and access to an interstate data exchange. Common challenges among lower adopters included lack of capacity at both registry and data source levels, insufficient staffing, and a lack of information technology or technical support. Other challenges consisted of automation and interoperability of software, volume of cases received, state political environment, and quality of data received.CONCLUSIONFeedback from the formative evaluation yielded several useful solutions that can guide implementation of electronic reporting and help refine the technical assistance provided to registries. Our findings may help guide future process and economic evaluations of electronic reporting and identify best practices to strengthen registry operations.
THE ROLE OF CANCER REGISTRIES.
International Journal of Advanced Research (IJAR), 2019
Cancer registration is important for epidemiology, planning, cancer policy and research. The network of cancer registry across India is widened and a process began in 1960?s.The cancer registration in India is expanded day by day including many Hospital Based Cancer Registries and Population Based Cancer Registries. Projection of cancer incidence is essential for planning cancer control actions, health care and allocation of resources. The incidence or the projection of cancer is made from the cancer registry.The cancer registry is an organization for the systematic collection storage, analysis, interpretation and reporting data on subjects with cancer.The main objective of these registries is to produce statistics on the occurrence and to provide a framework for assessing and controlling the impact of cancer in community. The emphasis will be an epidemiology and public health. The data will be used for obtaining information on burden and patterns of cancer. It can also provide a focus for research into etiology and prevention (primary and secondary) and patient care. The main role of cancer registry is to capturing a clear and complete picture of cancer in India.