Agreement of Iranian Breast Cancer Data and Relationships with Measuring Quality of Care in a 5-year Period (2006-2011)

  • Keshtkaran, Ali (Department of Health Information and Management, School of Management and Medical Information Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Sharifian, Roxana (Department of Health Information and Management, School of Management and Medical Information Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Barzegari, Saeed (Department of Health Information and Management, School of Management and Medical Information Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Talei, Abdolrasoul (Department of General Surgery, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Tahmasebi, Seddigheh (Department of General Surgery, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences)
  • Published : 2013.03.30


Objectives: To investigate data agreement of cancer registries and medical records as well as the quality of care and assess their relationship in a 5-year period from 2006 to 2011. Methods: The present cross-sectional, descriptive-analytical study was conducted on 443 cases summarized through census and using a checklist. Data agreement of Nemazi hospital-based cancer registry and the breast cancer prevention center was analyzed according to their corresponding medical records through adjusted and unadjusted Kappa. The process of care quality was also computed and the relationship with data agreement was investigated through chi-square test. Results: Agreement of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy data between Nemazi hospital-based cancer registry and medical records was 62.9%, 78.5%, and 81%, respectively, while the figures were 93.2%, 87.9%, and 90.8%, respectively, between breast cancer prevention center and medical records. Moreover, quality of mastectomy, lumpectomy, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy services assessed in Nemazi hospital-based cancer registry was 12.6%, 21.2%, 35.2%, and 15.1% different from the corresponding medical records. On the other hand, 7.4%, 1.4%, 22.5%, and 9.6% differences were observed between the quality of the above-mentioned services assessed in the breast cancer prevention center and the corresponding medical records. A significant relationship was found between data agreement and quality assessment. Conclusion: Although the results showed good data agreement, more agreement regarding the cancer stage data elements and the type of the received treatment is required to better assess cancer care quality. Therefore, more structured medical records and stronger cancer registry systems are recommended.


  1. Ballard-Barbash R, Potosky AL, Harlan LC, Nayfield SG, Kessler LG (1996). Factors associated with surgicaland radiation therapy for early stage breast cancer in older women. J National Cancer Institute, 88, 716-26.
  2. Ben-David A (2008), Comparison of classification accuracy using Cohen's Weighted Kappa. Expert Systems with Applications, 34, 825-32.
  3. Bickell NA, Chassin MR (2000). Determining the quality of breast cancer care: do tumor registries measure up? Ann Intern Med, 132, 705-10.
  4. Brewster DH, Stockton D, Harvey M, Mackay M (2002). Reliability of cancer registration data in Scotland1997, Eur J Cancer, 38, 414-7.
  5. Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB (1993). Bias, prevalence and kappa. J ClinEpidemiol, 46, 423-9.
  6. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987). A new method ofclassifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: developmentand validation. J Chronic Dis, 40, 373-83.
  7. Coory M, Thompson B, Baade P, Fritschi L (2004). Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines. BMC Health Serv Res, 9, 84.
  8. Farrow DC, Hunt WC, Samet JM (1992). Geographic variation in thetreatment of localized breast cancer. New England J Med, 326, 1097-101.
  9. Ferlay J, Burkhard C, Whelan S, Parkin DM (2005). Check and conversion programs for cancer registries (IARC/IACR tools for cancer registries). IARC technical report No.42 Lyon.
  10. Guadagnoli E, Shapiro CL, Weeks JC, et al (1998). The quality of care fortreatment of early stage breast carcinoma. Is itconsistent with national guidelines? Cancer, 83, 302-9.<302::AID-CNCR14>3.0.CO;2-X
  11. Guanmin Ch, Peter F, Brenda H, Robin LW, Hude Q (2009). Measuring agreement of administrative data with chart data using prevalence unadjusted and adjusted kappa. BMC Med Res Methodology, 9, 5.
  12. Guideline of breast cancer care for the patients as well as the health and treatment personnel by the Department of Cancer, Disease Management Center, Deputy of health and treatment, Ministry of Health, Treatment, and Medical Education. In Persian language. Translated by E Partoeipour, R RamezaniDaryasari, and F Nadeali. Ekbatan Publications, 2010.
  13. Gulliford MC, Bell J, Bourne HM, Petruckevitch A (1993). The reliability of cancer registry records. Br J Cancer, 67, 819-21.
  14. Hoehler FK (2000). Bias and prevalence effects on kappa viewed in terms of sensitivity and specificity. J Clinical Epidemiology, 53, 499-503.
  15. Malin JM, Kahn KL, Adams J, et al (2002). Validity of cancer registry data for measuring the quality of breast cancer care. J Natl Cancer Inst, 11, 835-44.
  16. McEvoy SP, Ingram DM, Byrne MJ, et al (2004). Breast cancer in Western Australia: clinical practice and clinical guidelines. Med J Aust, 181, 305-9.
  17. Moher D, Schachter HM, Mamaladze V, et al (2004). Measuring the quality of breast cancer care in women. AHRQ, No 04.
  18. Pearson ML, Ganz PA, McGuigan K, et al (2002). The case identification challenge in measuring quality of cancer care. J Clinical Oncol, 21, 4353-60.
  19. Pollock AM, Vickers N (1995). Reliability of data of the Thames cancer registry on 673 cases of colorectal cancer: effect of the registration process. Quality in Health Care, 4, 184-9.
  20. Rosselli Del, Turco M, Ponti A, et al (2010). Quality indicators in breast cancer care. Eur J Cancer, 46, 2344-56.
  21. SB Edge, CC Compton (2010). The american joint committee on cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol, 17, 1979-80.
  22. Schuster MA, Reifel JL, McGuigan K (1998). Assessment of the quality of cancer care: a review for the national cancer policy board of the institute of medicine. August 27.
  23. Sim J, Wright ChC (2005). The Kappa Statistic in Reliability Studies: Use, Interpretation, and Sample Size Requirements. Phys Ther, 85, 257-68.
  24. Smith SJ, Muir KR, Wolstenholme JL, et al (1997). Continued inadequacies in data sources for the evaluation of cancer services. Br J Cancer, 75, 131-3.
  25. Wyld L, Garg DK, Kumar ID, Brown H, Reed MW (2004). Stage and treatment variation with age in postmenopausal women with breast cancer: compliance with guidelines. Br J Cancer, 90, 1486-91
  26. Yulei He, Zaslavsky AM (2009). Combining information from cancer registry and medical records data to improve analyses of adjuvant cancer therapies. Biometrics, 65, 946-52.
  27. Zhang M, Higashi T, Nishimoto H, Kinoshita T, Sobue T (2010). Concordance of hospital-based cancer registry data with a clinicians' database for breast cancer. J Evaluation in Clinical Practice.

Cited by

  1. Estimation of Completeness of Cancer Registration for Patients Referred to Shiraz Selected Centers through a Two Source Capture Re-capture Method, 2009 Data vol.16, pp.13, 2015,