Skip Navigation LinksHome > May/June 2013 - Volume 19 - Issue 3 > Guidelines for the Mapping of Cancer Registry Data: Results...
Journal of Public Health Management & Practice:
doi: 10.1097/PHH.0b013e318268aef1
Original Articles

Guidelines for the Mapping of Cancer Registry Data: Results From a Breast Cancer Expert Panel Study

Roberts, Eric M. MD, PhD; Kumar, Bahar MPH; Collins, Natalie MSW; Guo, Liang MS; King, Galatea MPH; Wong, Michelle MPH; Barlow, Janice BSN; Bichler, Joyce MSW; Cady, Linda; Engel, Connie PhD; Garrett, Debbie BS, MHA; Harrison, Marie; Morieko, Adriana MBA; Murgai, Neena PhD, MPH; Tanjasiri, Sora Park DrPH, MPH; Pierce, Karen JD

Collapse Box


Context: Small area (eg, subcounty) cancer mapping is one of the analytic services most commonly requested of cancer registries and local public health agencies, and difficulties in providing it have been noted to undermine public confidence. Although a great many statistical protocols have been published to enable this practice, none of them are in common use to generate information for the general public.

Objectives: To evaluate the utility of subcounty breast cancer mapping and articulate guidelines and a possible protocol for its implementation by cancer registries and local public health agencies.

Methods: We convened an Expert Advisory Group of breast cancer stakeholders from around California to elicit values, priorities, and preferred characteristics of protocols for proactive subcounty breast cancer mapping. Upon formulating a protocol, we applied it to 9 years of data (2000–2008) describing invasive breast cancer in California for evaluation by the Expert Advisory Group.

Results: Maps with subcounty resolution were seen to provide important information with a wide range of applications. Priorities included the avoidance of false-positive findings, scientific credibility, and the provision of information elucidating social and environmental characteristics. A protocol using Kulldorff's Scan Statistic along with postanalytic steps for refining results was elaborated; when applied to the data, 4 discrete regions with elevated rates of invasive breast cancer were identified and described.

Conclusions: Expert Advisory Group priorities were readily translatable into a scientifically rigorous protocol that protected confidentiality and avoided statistically unstable rate estimates. The resulting maps enabled participants to visualize geographically defined populations falling within and crossing county boundaries. These findings support the enactment of policies for the routine and proactive analysis of breast cancer surveillance data to provide subcounty information.

© 2013 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.



Article Tools


Article Level Metrics

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.