Characteristics of prostate cancer patients captured by facility-based versus geography-based cancer registries.

Abstract

237 Background: Cancer registries provide valuable information related to cancer epidemiology, treatment, and outcomes. However, the sampling for inclusion can impact generalizability of findings to other settings. We use a population-based cancer registry to evaluate demographics, cancer factors, and treatment patterns based on eligibility for a facility-based cancer registry. Methods: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer (site = C61.9) in 2018. Exposure was whether data were reported from a facility accredited by American College of Surgeons’ Commission on Cancer (CoC), providing eligibility for the National Cancer Database (NCDB) (i.e., NCDB-eligible). Outcomes of interest included demographics, tumor factors (e.g., biopsy grade), and treatment. Bivariate testing and multivariable regression analyses tested for significant associations between exposure and outcomes of interest. Results: We identified 57,713 men diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2018, of which 32,384 (61.9%) were eligible for inclusion in NCDB. NCDB-eligible men were younger (66.6 vs 67.8 years, p < 0.001), less likely to be Hispanic/Latino (8.0% vs 14.4%, p < 0.001), and more likely to reside in a county with median income over $75,000 (39.7% vs 33.3%, p < 0.001). NCDB eligibility varied widely by registry, from 96.1% in Connecticut to 44.7% in Utah. The proportion of localized cancer patients with Grade Group 1 cancer on biopsy was higher among men ineligible for NCDB (41.4% vs 26.9%, p < 0.001). The proportion of patients with more advanced disease at presentation was higher among NCDB-eligible patients (metastatic: 9.4% vs 6.8%; regional: 18.7% vs 8.7%; p < 0.001). For patients with localized or regional cancer, treatment was identified more frequently among NCDB-eligible patients for both low-risk (38.5% vs 22.7%, p < 0.001) and high-risk tumors (84.9% vs 64.2%). Among treated patients, use of radical prostatectomy was more common among NCDB-eligible patients (low risk: 58.9% vs 43.1%; high risk: 53.7% vs 43.4%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Prostate cancer patients eligible for inclusion in the facility based NCDB have important differences in demographics, severity of cancer risk, and treatment patterns compared to those who are not eligible. Generalizations related to epidemiologic trends, practice patterns, and outcomes for prostate cancer patients in the NCDB should be interpreted with caution.