Spreadsheet: 1a0d42c2-4902-443c-b8aa-48052ab2bd6d
Sheet: Sheet1

Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | Unnamed: 2 | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Unnamed: 7
 |  | MN | PA | FL | NCDB | SEER | CCR
1 | Number of source records/year | 40000 | 125000 | 155000 | 3,500,000 after intra-facility deduplication (we  collect four submission years at a time to obtain follow-up information). |  | 197000
1 | Number of incident cancers/year | 26000 | 77000 | 95000 | 800000 |  | 157000
1 | Proportion linked automatically | 92% linked w/o review (stats for 2003). Expect new dxdate rule will produce 95%+ w/o review. | 28% automated tumor linkage.  Excludes records requiring patient linkage intervention. | 100% Tumor Linkage is automated. | All linkage is 100% automated |  | Tumor linkage is not automated for new cases.  Dup admissions are identified and removed.
2 | Types of source records: |  |  |  |  |  | NB: FUP sources have different linkage routines**
2 | Registry abstracts | X  (60%) | X (95%) | X (97.1%) | 100% - analytic cases only. | X | X (92%)
2 | Death certificates | X  (< 1%) | X ( 2%) | X (2.9%) | ----- | X | X (1%)**
2 | Pathology reports | X (40%) | X (2%) |  | ----- |  | X
2 | Radiation reports | ----- | X (1%) |  | ----- |  | X (0.7%)
2 | MD office reports |  |  |  |  |  | X (5%)
 | Other Tx reports |  |  |  |  |  | X
2 | Nursing hm reports |  |  |  |  |  | X
3 | Site Groups | See Comparison Table | See Comparison Table | See Comparison Table | See Comparison Table |  | See Comparison Table
3 | How implemented | table:  site pairs | Table: site pairs and equivalencies | Table: site pairs | Table: site pairs |  | Hard coded site pairs*
4 | Histology (solid tumors) | See Comparison Table | See Comparison Table | See Comparison Table | See Comparison Table |  | See Comparison Table
4 | How implemented | Table:  3 digit histo groups, and additional tables for benign brain. | Code: 3 digit histo   Table:  additional histo equivalencies. | Table:  3 digit histo groups along with Special Handling for Bladder, Brain and Non-Small Cell Carcinoma. | Generally use SEER Recodes for grouping, with special handling for lung and hematopoeitic |  | Tables: 1st 3 digit match (NB: melanoma laterality rules are ACoS/CoC).
4 | Histology (hematopoietic) | Tables:  SEER hematopoietic map | Planned - Currently no automation except for exact match. | Tables:  SEER hematopoietic map. | All hematopoeitic histologies are considered equivalent. |  | SEER "ICDO3 Histology Table"
5 | Time Period | Use SEER 2 month rule. | Use SEER 2 month rule | No Time period currently in effect.  Due to our collection of Historical cases, the SEER 2 month rule resulted in over reporting.  Currently doing analysis of impact to see if or where under reporting resulted from this change. | > 365 days indicates separate primaries. |  | Two months but with some histology and historical exceptions.
5 |  | > 1 year two primaries without review | > 12 mo two primaries without review.
5 |  | Within 1 year, review. | 3-12 mo, review.
6 | Comparison of incoming record to | Consolidated record. | Consolidated record. | Unduplicated Source Records. | Unduplicated Source Records |  | New Cases: consolidated and admission level both available.  FUP records are linked automatically.
7 | Manual Review - at what point are problem cases resolved? | Automated setting of flags/indicators for problem cases. These are resolved/cleared as further admissions arrive, otherwise resolved manually after all records submitted. | Questionable cases reviewed/resolved manually as they are linked before final deposition into the database. | No manual review. | No manual review. |  | All records manually reviewed.
8 | How portable is the system? --Tables, programming, definitions, other | Site, laterality, histo and hemapoietic tables are portable. | Tables all in access.  Will require assistance to incorporate into other systems. | Site, laterality, histo and hemapoietic tables are portable. | Oracle tables |  | Linkage-related programming and tables could be extracted for use in a program written in a comparable language.
8 |  | Uses SEER rules for tumor linkage. | Uses SEER rules for tumor linkage. |  |  |  | SEER rules, except melanoma.
8 |  | July, 2006 version will be fully portable
9 | How flexible, customizable is the system? | Very flexible for changes; no user interface to make changes. | Access tables easily changed; can be maintained on network requring single change with immediate implementation. | System is very flexible and customizable.  No User interface available to make changes. | Change requires programmer implementation |  | Requires programmer.
10 | Metrics on behavior and results? | Yes | Yes | Yes | No stored, but can readily be generated as needed
11 | Does registry perform audits of the automated system's results, decisions? | Yes | No.  System designed to require review prior to disposal in db if any question. | Yes | Yes |  | For current, manual review: periodic field, recode audits.  Considering automated metrics (see #12).
12 | Acceptability of registry's automated tumor linkage to CTR users, or consumers of results? | CTR's and epidemiologists trust the results and the availability of information regarding its performance. It was a four year process for the CTR's to trust the system. | Staff trust results.  After implementation saw significant reduction time needed to perform annual file clean-up. | Internal and External CTR's, DOH and researchers have complete faith in our tumor linkages. | Generally good, partly because of limited data sources (analytic cases from approved facilities only) |  | Reviewers preferred to have tumor linkage decisions be manual for new cases processed in Eureka, at least initially.  Will shortly begin an "Expert Systems" project to include automation for new cases.
 | Notes |  |  |  |  |  | *CCR Implementation: Not currently using a tumor linkage algorithm for new cases.  CCR runs a probabilistic patient match, then presents a list of the most probable patient matches with ALL their tumors. The reviewer chooses a correct patient match, and a correct tumor match (if appropriate).   The match list is from consolidated cases, but the reviewer can see the individual admission level admission related to the consolidated cases while making the linkage decisions.   The linkage algorithm is run for passive followup, corrections and deletions.
 | Notes |  |  |  |  |  | ** Majority of passive and active follow-up records, corrections, deletions are automatically linked by [NAME] (as per "Appendix 22" and CANDIS)