Terminal digit preference: a source of measurement error in breast cancer diameter reporting

References

• Hayes SJ. Terminal digit preference occurs in pathology reporting irrespective of patient management implication. J Clin Pathol. 2008;61(9):1071–1072.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veierød MB, Page CM, Aaserud S, et al. Melanoma staging: varying precision and terminal digit clustering in Breslow thickness data is evident in a population-based study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79(1):118–125.e1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• den Bakker MA, Damhuis RAM. Pentameric last-digit preference and stage border avoidance in pathology measurement. Histopathology. 2018;73(3):510–513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coburn NG, Clarke-Pearson E, Chung MA, et al. A novel approach to T classification in tumor-node-metastasis staging of breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2006;192(4):434–438.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabár L, Tucker L, Davenport RR, et al. The use of mammographic tumour feature significantly improves outcome prediction of breast cancers smaller than 15 mm: a reproducibility study from two comprehensive breast centres. Memo. 2011;4(3):149–157.
   Google Scholar
• Verschraegen C, Vinh-Hung V, Cserni G, et al. Modeling the effect of tumor size in early breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2005;241(2):309–318.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badve SS, Beitsch PD, Bose S, et al. Part XI, Breast In: Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F, et al. editors. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. Heidelberg, (Germany): Springer International Publishing; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Union for International Cancer Control. TNM classification of malignant tumours In: Brierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C, editors. 8th ed. Oxford, UK & Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes DF, Allred C, B.O A, et al. Part VII, Breast In: Edge S, Byrd D, Compton CC, et al. editors. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 7th ed. Heidelberg, (Germany): Springer International Publishing; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Heusinger K, Lohberg C, Lux MP, et al. Assessment of breast cancer tumor size depends on method, histopathology and tumor size itself*. Breast Cancer Res Tr. 2005;94(1):17–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marinovich ML, Macaskill P, Irwig L, et al. Agreement between MRI and pathologic breast tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and comparison with alternative tests: individual patient data meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2015;15(1):662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brystkreft – handlingsprogram [Internet]. Oslo: ​Norwegian Directorate of Health; 2019. [updated 2019/01/17; cited 2019/04/05]. Available from: https://helsedirektoratet.no/retningslinjer/nasjonalt-handlingsprogram-med-retningslinjer-for-diagnostikk-behandling-og-oppfolging-av-pasienter-med-brystkreft
   Google Scholar
• Kvalitetsmanual i Mammografiprogrammet – Patologi. Oslo: Mammografiprogrammet, Kreftregisteret; 2018. Available from: https://www.kreftregisteret.no/globalassets/publikasjoner-og-rapporter/mammografiprogrammet/20180206_kvalitetsmanual-patologi---nettversjon_med-forside.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Larsen IK, Smastuen M, Johannesen TB, et al. Data quality at the Cancer Registry of Norway: an overview of comparability, completeness, validity and timeliness. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(7):1218–1231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cancer Registry of Norway. Cancer in Norway 2016 – cancer incidence, mortality, survival and prevalence in Norway. Oslo Cancer Registry of Norway; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Hofvind S, Tsuruda K, Mangerud G, et al. The Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program, 1996-2016: celebrating 20 years of organised screening in Norway. Oslo: Cancer Registry of Norway; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Forskrift om innsamling og behandling av helseopplysninger i Kreftregisteret (Kreftregisterforskriften) [Regulations on the collection and processing of personal health data in the Cancer Registry of Norway (Cancer Registry Regulations)], FOR-2001-12-21-1477 2002. Norwegian.
   Google Scholar
• Larsen IK, Myklebust TÅ, Johannesen TB, et al. Stage-specific incidence and survival of breast cancer in Norway: The implications of changes in coding and classification practice. Breast. 2018;38:107–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327(8476):307–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. version 3.5.0. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Gamer M, Lemon J, Singh IFP. irr: Various coefficients of interrater reliability and agreement. Version 0.84. 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Signorell A, Aho K, Alfons A, et al. DescTools: tools for descriptive statistics. Version 0.99.26. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Pineros M, Parkin DM, Ward K, et al. Essential TNM: a registry tool to reduce gaps in cancer staging information. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(2):e103–e11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein RG, Wollschlager D, Kreienberg R, et al. The impact of breast cancer biological subtyping on tumor size assessment by ultrasound and mammography – a retrospective multicenter cohort study of 6543 primary breast cancer patients. BMC Cancer. 2016;16(1):459.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gruber IV, Rueckert M, Kagan KO, et al. Measurement of tumour size with mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance imaging as compared to histological tumour size in primary breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2013;13(1):328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hieken TJ, Harrison J, Herreros J, et al. Correlating sonography, mammography, and pathology in the assessment of breast cancer size. Am J Surg. 2001;182(4):351–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronin-Fenton DP, Kjaersgaard A, Ahern TP, et al. Validity of Danish Breast Cancer Group (DBCG) registry data used in the predictors of breast cancer recurrence (ProBeCaRe) premenopausal breast cancer cohort study. Acta Oncol. 2017;56(9):1155–1160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakkestad ST, Olsen BC, Karliczek A, et al. Validity of Norwegian Rectal Cancer Registry data at a major university hospital 1997-2005. Acta Oncol. 2015;54(10):1723–1728.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lofgren L, Eloranta S, Krawiec K, et al. Validation of data quality in the Swedish National Register for Breast Cancer. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):495
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porta M. A Dictionary of Epidemiology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Marinovich ML, Macaskill P, Bernardi D, et al. Systematic review of agreement between tomosynthesis and pathologic tumor size for newly diagnosed breast cancer and comparison with other imaging tests. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018;15(7):489–496.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cancer Registry of Norway. Årsrapport 2017 med resultater og forbedringstiltak fra Nasjonalt kvalitetsregister for brystkreft. [National quality registry for breast cancer annual report, 2017]. Oslo: Cancer Registry of Norway; 2018. Norwegian.
   Google Scholar
• Cancer Registry of Norway. Årsrapport 2016 med resultater og forbedringstiltak fra Nasjonalt kvalitetsregister for brystkreft. [National quality registry for breast cancer annual report, 2016]. Oslo: Cancer Registry of Norway; 2017. Norwegian.
   Google Scholar
• Cancer Registry of Norway. Patologirapport. [Pathology report]. Oslo: Cancer Registry of Norway; 2015. Norwegian.
   Google Scholar