Imputation of missing prostate cancer stage in English cancer registry data based on clinical assumptions.
Authors
Parry, MGSujenthiran, A
Cowling, TE
Charman, S
Nossiter, J
Aggarwal, A
Clarke, Noel W
Payne, H
van der Meulen, J
Affiliation
Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, EnglandIssue Date
2018
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer stage can be missing in national cancer registry records. We explored whether missing prostate cancer stage can be imputed using specific clinical assumptions. METHODS: Prostate cancer patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2013 were identified in English cancer registry data and linked to administrative hospital and mortality data (n?=?139,807). Missing staging items were imputed based on specific assumptions: men with recorded N-stage but missing M-stage have no distant metastases (M0); low/intermediate-risk men with missing N- and/or M-stage have no nodal disease (N0) or metastases; and high-risk men with missing M-stage have no metastases. We tested these clinical assumptions by comparing 4-year survival in men with the same recorded and imputed cancer stage. Multi-variable Cox regression was used to test the validity of the clinical assumptions and multiple imputation. RESULTS: Survival was similar for men with recorded N-stage but missing M-stage and corresponding men with M0 (89.5% vs 89.6%); for low/intermediate-risk men with missing M-stage and corresponding men with M0 (92.0% vs 93.1%); and for low/intermediate-risk men with missing N-stage and corresponding men with N0 (90.9% vs 93.7%). However, survival was different for high-risk men with missing M-stage and corresponding men with M0. Imputation based on clinical imputation performs as well as statistical multiple imputation. CONCLUSION: Specific clinical assumptions can be used to impute missing information on nodal involvement and distant metastases in some patients with prostate cancer.Citation
Parry MG, Sujenthiran A, Cowling TE, Charman S, Nossiter J, Aggarwal A, et al. Imputation of missing prostate cancer stage in English cancer registry data based on clinical assumptions. Cancer Epidemiol. 2018 Nov 18;58:44-51.Journal
Cancer EpidemiologyDOI
10.1016/j.canep.2018.11.003PubMed ID
30463041Additional Links
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2018.11.003Type
ArticleLanguage
enae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.canep.2018.11.003
Scopus Count
Collections
Related articles
- Choice of imputation method for missing metastatic status affected estimates of metastatic prostate cancer incidence.
- Authors: Westerberg M, Beckmann K, Gedeborg R, Irenaeus S, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Stattin P
- Issue date: 2023 Mar
- Validity of using multiple imputation for "unknown" stage at diagnosis in population-based cancer registry data.
- Authors: Luo Q, Egger S, Yu XQ, Smith DP, O'Connell DL
- Issue date: 2017
- An Up-to-date Assessment of US Prostate Cancer Incidence Rates by Stage and Race: A Novel Approach Combining Multiple Imputation with Age and Delay Adjustment.
- Authors: Cook MB, Hurwitz LM, Geczik AM, Butler EN
- Issue date: 2021 Jan
- Bias due to missing SEER data in D'Amico risk stratification of prostate cancer.
- Authors: Elliott SP, Johnson DP, Jarosek SL, Konety BR, Adejoro OO, Virnig BA
- Issue date: 2012 Jun
- Influence of various assumptions for the individual TNM components on the TNM stage using Nordic cancer registry data.
- Authors: Engholm G, Lundberg FE, Kønig SM, Ólafsdóttir E, Johannesen TB, Pettersson D, Mørch LS, Johansson ALV, Friis S
- Issue date: 2023 Mar