CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 135Global Cancer Incidence and ScreeningMedical Coding and Health InformationElectronic Health Records Systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevalence of Missing Data in the National Cancer Database and Association With Overall Survival

Open access
Yang, Daniel X., Khera, Rohan, Miccio, Joseph A., Jairam, Vikram, Chang, Enoch, Yu, James B., Park, Henry S., Krumholz, Harlan M., Aneja, Sanjay·2021·JAMA Network Open
DOI 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1793PMC PMC7988369

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Importance: Cancer registries are important real-world data sources consisting of data abstraction from the medical record; however, patients with unknown or missing data are underrepresented in studies that use such data sources. Objective: To assess the prevalence of missing data and its association with overall survival among patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study, all variables within the National Cancer Database were reviewed for missing or unknown values for patients with the 3 most common cancers in the US who received diagnoses from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2015. The prevalence of patient records with missing data and the association with overall survival were assessed. Data analysis was performed from February to August 2020. Exposures: Any missing data field within a patient record among 63 variables of interest from more than 130 total variables in the National Cancer Database. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of missing data in the medical records of patients with cancer and associated 2-year overall survival. Results: A total of 1 198 749 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (mean [SD] age, 68.5 [10.9] years; 628 811 men [52.5%]), 2 120 775 patients with breast cancer (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [13.3] years; 2 101 758 women [99.1%]), and 1 158 635 patients with prostate cancer (mean [SD] age, 65.2 [9.0] years; 100% men) were included in the analysis. Among those with non-small cell lung cancer, 851 295 patients (71.0%) were missing data for variables of interest; 2-year overall survival was 33.2% for patients with missing data and 51.6% for patients with complete data (P < .001). Among those with breast cancer, 1 161 096 patients (54.7%) were missing data for variables of interest; 2-year overall survival was 93.2% for patients with missing data and 93.9% for patients with complete data (P < .001). Among those with prostate cancer, 460 167 patients (39.7%) were missing data for variables of interest; 2-year overall survival was 91.0% for patients with missing data and 95.6% for patients with complete data (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that within a large cancer registry-based real-world data source, there was a high prevalence of missing data that were unable to be ascertained from the medical record. The prevalence of missing data among patients with cancer was associated with heterogeneous differences in overall survival. Improvements in documentation and data quality are necessary to make optimal use of real-world data for clinical advancements.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1793

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. Overall Survival of Patients With Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer, Breast Cancer, and Prostate Cancer by Missingness of Data for Variables of Interest A, Patients with non–small cell lung cancer. B, Patients with breast cancer. C, Patients with prostate cancer.
Figure 1. Overall Survival of Patients With Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer, Breast Cancer, and Prostate Cancer by Missingness of Data for Variables of Interest A, Patients with non–small cell lung cancer. B, Patients with breast cancer. C, Patients with prostate cancer.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2. Overall Survival of Patients With Metastatic and Nonmetastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer, Breast Cancer, and Prostate Cancer by Missingness of Data for Variables of Interest A, Patients with non–small cell lung cancer. B, Patients with breast cancer. C, Patients with prostate cancer.
Figure 2. Overall Survival of Patients With Metastatic and Nonmetastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer, Breast Cancer, and Prostate Cancer by Missingness of Data for Variables of Interest A, Patients with non–small cell lung cancer. B, Patients with breast cancer. C, Patients with prostate cancer.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 55 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Yang, D. X., Khera, R., Miccio, J. A., Jairam, V., Chang, E., Yu, J. B., Park, H. S., Krumholz, H. M., & Aneja, S.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Aneja, Sanjay
ORCID
Venue
JAMA Network Open
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2021-03-23
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
e211793
ISSN
2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1793
PMC
PMC7988369
OpenAlex
W3135917060
Cited by
135
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 3
FWCI
7.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JAMA Network Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Conquer Cancer Foundation
  • Yale University
  • Yale SPORE in Lung Cancer
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
missing data, data quality, cancer registry, National Cancer Database, overall survival, non-small cell lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, data abstraction, real-world data, data sharing restrictions, data access restrictions
MeSH terms
Data Management, Aged, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Registries, Retrospective Studies, United States, Prevalence, Survival Rate, Databases, Factual

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review