Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFourkala, EOen_US
dc.contributor.authorGentry-Maharaj, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorBurnell, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorRyan, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorManchanda, Ren_US
dc.contributor.authorDawnay, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorJacobs, Ien_US
dc.contributor.authorWidschwendter, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorMenon, Uen_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-01-20T11:31:31Z
dc.date.issued2012-06-05en_US
dc.identifier.other10.1038/bjc.2012.155
dc.identifier.urihttp://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/10809
dc.descriptionFrom twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.en_US
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: In research studies, accurate information of cancer diagnosis is crucial. In women with breast cancer (BC), we compare cancer registration (CR) in England/Wales and self-reporting with independent confirmation. METHODS: In the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, notification of BC diagnosed between randomisation and 31 December 2009 was obtained through (1) CR (17 October 2011) and (2) self-reporting using postal-questionnaire. Breast cancer was confirmed using a detailed questionnaire (BC questionnaire BCQ) completed by the treating clinician (gold standard). Apparent sensitivity and positive-predictive value of CR/self-reporting vs BCQ were calculated. RESULTS: Of 1065 women with possible BC notification, diagnosis was confirmed in 932 (87.5%). A total of 3.1% (28 out of 918) of BC CR and 12.4% (128 out of 1032) of women with self-reported BC only had in-situ carcinoma on BCQ. Another 4.6% (43 out of 932) of BCQ-confirmed cancer did not have a BC registration, and 3.6% (34 out of 932) did not self-report BC. Apparent sensitivity of CR and self-reporting vs BCQ were 95.4 and 96.4%, respectively. Positive-predictive value of self-reporting (87.1%) was significantly lower than that of CR (96.8%). Women aged<65 were more likely to over report in-situ carcinoma as BC. Overall, 73 (6.8%) women would have been misclassified/missed if CR, and 167 (15.6%) if self-reporting data alone was used. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the reliability of BC registration in England/Wales and highlights the fact that 1 in 10 women self-reporting BC might only have in-situ breast carcinoma.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipUKCTOCS was core-funded by MRC, Cancer Research UK and the Department of Health, with additional support from the Eve Appeal. This project was supported by a grant from the UCLH/UCL Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre (project no 152), and most of this work has been undertaken at the UCLH/UCL, which received a proportion of its funding from the Department of Health NIHR Biomedical Research Centers funding scheme.en_US
dc.format.extent1910 - 1916en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofBr J Canceren_US
dc.subjectAdulten_US
dc.subjectAgeden_US
dc.subjectAged, 80 and overen_US
dc.subjectBreast Neoplasmsen_US
dc.subjectCohort Studiesen_US
dc.subjectEnglanden_US
dc.subjectFemaleen_US
dc.subjectFollow-Up Studiesen_US
dc.subjectHumansen_US
dc.subjectMiddle Ageden_US
dc.subjectRegistriesen_US
dc.subjectSelf Reporten_US
dc.subjectSurveys and Questionnairesen_US
dc.subjectWalesen_US
dc.titleHistological confirmation of breast cancer registration and self-reporting in England and Wales: a cohort study within the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening.en_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.holder2016 Cancer Research UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1038/bjc.2012.155en_US
pubs.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22596242en_US
pubs.issue12en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden_US
pubs.volume106en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record