The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Impact of Reporting Delay and Reporting Error on Cancer Incidence Rates and Trends
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer incidence rates and trends are a measure of the cancer burden in the general population. We studied the impact of reporting delay and reporting error on incidence rates and trends for cancers of the female breast, colorectal, lung/bronchus, prostate, and melanoma. METHODS: Based on statistical models, we obtained reporting-adjusted (i.e., adjusted for both reporting delay and reporting error) case counts for each diagnosis year beginning in 1981 using reporting information for patients diagnosed with cancer in 1981-1998 from nine cancer registries that participate in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Joinpoint linear regression was used for trend analysis. All statistical tests are two-sided. RESULTS: Initial incidence case counts (i.e., after the standard 2-year delay) accounted for only 88%-97% of the estimated final counts; it would take 4-17 years for 99% or more of the cancer cases to be reported. The percent change between reporting-adjusted and unadjusted cancer incidence rates for the 1998 diagnosis year ranged from 3% for colorectal cancers to 14% for melanoma in whites and for prostate cancer in black males. Reporting-adjusted current incidence trends for breast cancer and lung/bronchus cancer in white females showed statistically significant increases (estimated annual percent change [EAPC] = 0.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.1% to 1.2%) and 1.2%, 95% CI = 0.7% to 1.6%, respectively), whereas trends for these cancers using unadjusted incidence rates were not statistically significantly different from zero (EAPC = 0.4%, 95% CI = -0.1% to 0.9% and 0.5%, 95% CI = -0.1% to 1.1%, respectively). Reporting-adjusted melanoma incidence rates for white males showed a statistically significant increase since 1981 (EAPC = 4.1%, 95% CI = 3.8% to 4.4%) in contrast to the unadjusted incidence rate, which was most consistent with a flat or downward trend (EAPC = -4.2%, 95% CI = -11.1% to 3.3%) after 1996. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting-adjusted cancer incidence rates are valuable in precisely determining current cancer incidence rates and trends and in monitoring the timeliness of data collection. Ignoring reporting delay and reporting error may produce downwardly biased cancer incidence trends, particularly in the most recent diagnosis years.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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
Cited by
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., & Jemal, A. (2020) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21590 · Cited by 20,444
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., & Jemal, A. (2019) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21551 · Cited by 20,160
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., Fuchs, H. E., & Jemal, A. (2021) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21654 · Cited by 16,522
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., Fuchs, H. E., & Jemal, A. (2022) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21708 · Cited by 17,196
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., Wagle, N. S., & Jemal, A. (2023) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21763 · Cited by 16,303
Metadata
- Authors
- Clegg, L. X.
- Venue
- CancerSpectrum Knowledge Environment
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-10-16
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 20
- Pages
- 1537-1545
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W2099698968
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Impact of Reporting Delay and Reporting Error on Cancer Incidence Rates and Trends. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/94.20.1537
- The paper
- Clegg, L. X. (2002). Impact of Reporting Delay and Reporting Error on Cancer Incidence Rates and Trends. CancerSpectrum Knowledge Environment. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/94.20.1537
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.