Radiation Oncology Journal

The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology (대한방사선종양학회)
권호 표지

Evaluation of Tumor Registry Validity in Samsung Medical Center Radiation Oncology Department

삼성서울병원 방사선종양학과 종양등록 정보의 타당도 평가

  • Park Won (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Huh Seung Jae (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim Dae Yong (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Shin Seong Soo (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Ahn Yong Chan (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Lim Do Hoon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim Seonwoo (Biostatistics Unit, Samsung Biomedical Research Institute)
  • 박원 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 허승재 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 김대용 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 신성수 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 안용찬 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 임도훈 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 김선우 (삼성생명과학연구소 통계지원팀)
  • Published : 2004.03.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose : A tumor registry system for the patients treated by radiotherapy at Samsung Medical Center since the opening of a hospital at 1994 was employed. In this study, the tumor registry system was introduced and the validity of the tumor registration was analyzed. Materials and Methods: The tumor registry system was composed of three parts: patient demographic, diagnostic, and treatment Information. All data were input in a screen using a mouse only. Among the 10,000 registered cases in the tumor registry system until Aug, 2002, 199 were randomly selected and their registration data were compared with the patients' medical records. Results : Total input errors were detected on 15 cases (7.5%). There were 8 error items In the part relating to diagnostic Information: tumor site 3, pathology 2, AJCC staging 2 and performance status 1. In the part relating to treatment information there were 9 mistaken items: combination treatment 4, the date of initial treatment 3 and radiation completeness 2. According to the assignment doctor, the error ratio was consequently variable. The doctors who 010 no double-checks showed higher errors than those that 010 (15.6%:3.7%). Conclusion: Our tumor registry had errors within 2% for each Item. Although the overall data qualify was high, further improvement might be achieved through promoting sincerity, continuing training, periodic validity tests and keeping double-checks. Also, some items associated with the hospital Information system will be input automatically In the next step.

목적 : 삼성서울병원 방사선종양학과에서는 1994년 개원 초부터 방사선치료를 받은 환자를 대상으로 자체 종양등록시스템을 운영하고 있다. 본 연구에서는 삼성서울병원 방사선종양학과 종양등록시 스템을 소개하고, 종양등록 현황을 분석하고자 하였다. 대상 및 방법 : 삼성서울병원 통합방사선관리 시스템의 한 부분이 종양등록 시스템이다 종양등록 시스템은 환자정보, 진단 정보, 치료정보로 구성되어 있으며, 모든 입력은 한 화면에서 이루어지며, 마우스만 가지고 입력이 가능하다. 2002년 7월까지 종양등록 시스템에 등록된 10,000예의 환자군에서 199명을 무작위 추출하여, 추출된 환자들의 등록된 종양정보와 실제 의무기록을 비교하여 입력이 누락되었거나 다른 정보가 등록되었는지 확인하였다. 결과 : 전체 대상 환자 199예 중 입력 오류가 발생한 경우는 15예(7.5%)에서 17건이었고, 진단정보와 치료정보에서 각각 8건, 9건이었다. 진단정보는 상병, 조직병리, AJCC 병기 및 전신수행능력이 잘못 입력된 경우였고, 치료정보중에는 병용치료 종류, 추적관찰 개시일 및 방사선치료 완결 유무 항목에서 오류가 있었다. 담당 의사별 오류를 분석하여 보았는데, 중복 점검이 시행된 경우에 모류는 3.7%에 불과하였지만 중복 점검이 되지 못한 경우는 15.6%의 오류가 있었다. 결론 : 종양등록 시스템을 이용하여 개별 항목별로는 모두 2% 이내의 오류에 불과하였다. 그러나, 정보의 질을 보다 향상시키기 위해서는 입력자의 성실성 및 종양등록에 대한 전문지식을 높이고, 주기적인 타당도 검사 및 중복점검 체계의 확립이 필요하겠다. 또한, 종합병원정보 시스템과 연계된 항목을 적극 활용할 수 있겠으나, 이를 위해서는 먼저 종합병원정보 시스템 내 종양등록 정보의 수준이 검증되어야 할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Belinson JL, McClure MS, Deutsch RA. A new automated registry and clinical research system and its application to gynecologic oncology patients. Gynecol Oncol 1987;27:264-268 https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-8258(87)90245-9
  2. Merrill RM, Capocaccia R, Feuer EJ, Mariotto A. Cancer prevalence estimates based on tumor registry data in the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) program. Int J Epidemiol 2000;29:197-207 https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/29.2.197
  3. Haenszel W, Curnen MG. The first fifty years of the Connecticut tumor resgistry: reminiscences and prospects. Yale K Bioi Med 1986;59:475-484
  4. Kim DY, Ahn YC, Huh SJ, Choi DR. What is an ideal tumor registry in radiation oncology in Korea. computer and network based radiotherapy 199. Samsung Medical Center 1999:61-66
  5. Woo ZH, Hong YC, Oh JH, Kim WC, Pu YK, Kim SI. The implementation study of incheon cancer registry (ICR). Incheon Cancer Registry Office 2002
  6. Bulow S. Results of national registration of familial adenomatous polyposis. Gut 2003;52:742-746 https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.52.5.742
  7. Davis FG, McCarthy BJ, Berger MS. Centralized databases available for describing primary brain tumor incidence, survival, and treatment; central brain tumor registry of the united states; surveillance, epidemiology, and end results; and national cancer data base. Neuro-oncol 1999;1:205-211 https://doi.org/10.1215/15228517-1-3-205
  8. Cotterchio M, McKeown-Eyssen G, Sutherland H, et al. Ontario famial colon cancer registry: methods and first-year response rates. Chronic Dis Can 2000;21:81-86
  9. Belinson JL, McClure MS, Deutsch RA. A new automated tumor registry and clinical research system and its application to gynecologic oncology patients. Gynecol Oncol 1987;27:264-268 https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-8258(87)90245-9
  10. Devesa SS, Pollack ES, Young JL Jr. Assessing the validity of observed cancer incidence trends. Am J Epidemiol 1984;119:274-291 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113746
  11. Shin MH, Ahn YO. Evaluation of the completeness and validity of the registration in the implementation study of seoul cancer registry (ISSCR). Korean J Prev Med 1994;27:735-745
  12. Ahn YC, Kim DY, Hun SJ, et al. Development of comprehensive radiation oncology management system in samsung medical center. In : Lemke HU, Vannier MW, Inamura K and Farman AG, eds. Computer assisted radiology and surgery. 1 st ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1998;271-275
  13. Huh SJ, Ahn YC, Lim DH, et al. Radiation oncology image chart and digital radiotherapy record system at samsung medical center. J Korean Soc Ther Radiol Oncol 1994;12:331-336
  14. Zippin C, Lum D. Study of completeness of the surveillance, epidemiology and end results (SEER) program case ascertained by hospital size and casefinding source. Health Rep 1993;5:87-90
  15. Brewster D, Crichton J, Muir CS. How accurate are Scottish cancer registration data? Br J Cancer 1994;70:954-959
  16. Brewster DH, Stockton D, Harvey J, Mackay M. Reliability of cancer registration data in Scotland, 1997. Eur J Cancer 2002;38:414-417 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-8049(01)00385-9
  17. Lim HS, Lee CW, Lee MY. Accuracy about cancer registry data of Daegu Metropolitan City in 1997-1998 by reabstracting method. J Korean Soc Med Inform 2002;8:11-23
  18. Lee KN. Cancer registry program at the Cancer institute in Korea University Medical Center. J Korean Soc Med Inform 1999;5:125-130