Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36077668›Full record

ReviewCancers2022

Leveraging Comprehensive Cancer Registry Data to Enable a Broad Range of Research, Audit and Patient Support Activities.

Belinda Lee, Lucy Gately, Sheau Wen Lok, Ben Tran, Margaret Lee, Rachel Wong, Ben Markman, Kate Dunn, Vanessa Wong, Matthew Loft and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Belinda LeeWalter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0947-9834
Lucy GatelyWalter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3003-3175
Sheau Wen LokWalter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.
Ben TranWalter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.
Margaret LeeWalter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.
Rachel WongDepartment of Medical Oncology, Eastern Health, Melbourne, VIC 3151, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4926-5689
Ben MarkmanWalter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.
Kate DunnWalter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.
Vanessa WongWalter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.
Matthew LoftWalter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3267-4520
Azim JaliliWalter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.
Angelyn AntonWalter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.
Richard ToWalter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.
Miles AndrewsWalter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1231-8641
Peter GibbsWalter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditional cancer registries have often been siloed efforts, established by single groups with limited objectives. There is the potential for registry data to support a broad range of research, audit and education initiatives. Here, we describe the establishment of a series of comprehensive cancer registries across the spectrum of common solid cancers. The experience and learnings of each registry team as they develop, implement and then use collected data for a range of purposes, that informs the conduct and output of other registries in a virtuous cycle. Each registry is multi-site, multi-disciplinary and aims to collect data of maximal interest and value to a broad range of enquiry, which would be accessible to any researcher with a high-quality proposal. Lessons learnt include the need for careful and continuous curation of data fields, with regular database updates, and the need for a continued focus on data quality. The registry data as a standalone resource has supported numerous projects, but linkage with external datasets with patients in common has enhanced the audit and research potential. Multiple projects have linked registry data with matched tissue specimens to support prognostic and predictive biomarker studies, both validation and discovery. Registry-based biomarker trials have been successfully supported, generating novel and practice-changing data. Registry-based clinical trials, particularly randomised studies exploring the optimal use of available therapy options are now complementing the research conducted in traditional clinical trials. More recent projects supported by the registries include health economic studies, personalised patient education material, and increased consumer engagement, including consumer entered data.

Indexed as

big datacancer registrydata-driven researchdigital healthregistry-based trials

Identifiers

PMID36077668
PMCPMC9454529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.