A systematic review of methods to estimate colorectal cancer incidence using population-based cancer registries

Background

Epidemiological studies of incidence play an essential role in quantifying disease burden, resource planning, and informing public health policies. A variety of measures for estimating cancer incidence have been used. Appropriate reporting of incidence calculations is essential to enable clear interpretation. This review uses colorectal cancer (CRC) as an exemplar to summarize and describe variation in commonly employed incidence measures and evaluate the quality of reporting incidence methods.

Methods

We searched four databases for CRC incidence studies published between January 2010 and May 2020. Two independent reviewers screened all titles and abstracts. Eligible studies were population-based cancer registry studies evaluating CRC incidence. We extracted data on study characteristics and author-defined criteria for assessing the quality of reporting incidence. We used descriptive statistics to summarize the information.

Results

This review retrieved 165 relevant articles. The age-standardized incidence rate (ASR) (80%) was the most commonly reported incidence measure, and the 2000 U.S. standard population the most commonly used reference population (39%). Slightly more than half (54%) of the studies reported CRC incidence stratified by anatomical site. The quality of reporting incidence methods was suboptimal. Of all included studies: 45 (27%) failed to report the classification system used to define CRC; 63 (38%) did not report CRC codes; and only 20 (12%) documented excluding certain CRC cases from the numerator. Concerning the denominator estimation: 61% of studies failed to state the source of population data; 24 (15%) indicated census years; 10 (6%) reported the method used to estimate yearly population counts; and only 5 (3%) explicitly explained the population size estimation procedure to calculate the overall average incidence rate. Thirty-three (20%) studies reported the confidence interval for incidence, and only 7 (4%) documented methods for dealing with missing data.

Conclusion

This review identified variations in incidence calculation and inadequate reporting of methods. We outlined recommendations to optimize incidence estimation and reporting practices. There is a need to establish clear guidelines for incidence reporting to facilitate assessment of the validity and interpretation of reported incidence.