Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Agreement between self-reported and register-based cardiovascular events among Danish breast cancer survivors

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Survivorship Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We examined the degree of over- and under-reporting of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) among female breast cancer survivors comparing self-reports to diagnostic codes from the Danish National Patient Register (NPR).

Methods

The study comprised 357 Danish breast cancer patients from the WECARE study who completed a telephone interview concerning CVDs. Disease diagnoses for these women were obtained from the NPR. Agreement was calculated as the number of diagnoses that were both self-reported and in the NPR divided by (1) number of self-reported diagnoses (over-reporting) or (2) number of diagnoses in the NPR (under-reporting).

Results

In total, 68 women reported 96 specific cardiovascular outcomes of which 56 (58%) were found in the NPR. Ninety cardiovascular diagnoses were found in the NPR of which 56 (62%) were specifically reported at the interview. There was 80% agreement as to the occurrence of a cardiovascular diagnosis overall. Of 289 women reporting no CVD, 273 (94%) had no diagnoses in the NPR.

Conclusions

Breast cancer survivors seem to report absence of CVD accurately, but they both over-report and under-report specific cardiovascular diagnoses. Using a broader definition of CVDs improves the agreement between self-reported and NPR data.

Implications for cancer survivors

Determining how cancer treatments affect the risk of cardiovascular morbidities is essential, and the development of high-quality methods for collecting such data is critical. While self-reported data are adequate for assessing the presence of any CVD condition, medical record review will yield higher quality data on specific CVD conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Harlow SD, Linet MS. Agreement between questionnaire data and medical records. The evidence for accuracy of recall. Am J Epidemiol. 1989;129(2):233–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tretli S, Lund-Larsen PG, Foss OP. Reliability of questionnaire information on cardiovascular disease and diabetes: cardiovascular disease study in Finnmark county. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1982;36(4):269–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Haapanen N, Miilunpalo S, Pasanen M, Oja P, Vuori I. Agreement between questionnaire data and medical records of chronic diseases in middle-aged and elderly Finnish men and women. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;145(8):762–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Colditz GA, Martin P, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, Sampson L, Rosner B, et al. Validation of questionnaire information on risk factors and disease outcomes in a prospective cohort study of women. Am J Epidemiol. 1986;123(5):894–900.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Klungel OH, de Boer A, Paes AH, Seidell JC, Bakker A. Cardiovascular diseases and risk factors in a population-based study in The Netherlands: agreement between questionnaire information and medical records. Neth J Med. 1999;55(4):177–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Paganini-Hill A, Chao A. Accuracy of recall of hip fracture, heart attack, and cancer: a comparison of postal survey data and medical records. Am J Epidemiol. 1993;138(2):101–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bergmann MM, Byers T, Freedman DS, Mokdad A. Validity of self-reported diagnoses leading to hospitalization: a comparison of self-reports with hospital records in a prospective study of American adults. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;147(10):969–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Muggah E, Graves E, Bennett C, Manuel DG. Ascertainment of chronic diseases using population health data: a comparison of health administrative data and patient self-report. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Meisinger C, Schuler A, Lowel H, Group MK. Postal questionnaires identified hospitalizations for self-reported acute myocardial infarction. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(9):989–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. St Sauver JL, Hagen PT, Cha SS, Bagniewski SM, Mandrekar JN, Curoe AM, et al. Agreement between patient reports of cardiovascular disease and patient medical records. Mayo Clin Proc. 2005;80(2):203–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Okura Y, Urban LH, Mahoney DW, Jacobsen SJ, Rodeheffer RJ. Agreement between self-report questionnaires and medical record data was substantial for diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction and stroke but not for heart failure. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(10):1096–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.04.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Navin Cristina TJ, Stewart Williams JA, Parkinson L, Sibbritt DW, Byles JE. Identification of diabetes, heart disease, hypertension and stroke in mid- and older-aged women: comparing self-report and administrative hospital data records. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2016;16(1):95–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.12442.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Barr EL, Tonkin AM, Welborn TA, Shaw JE. Validity of self-reported cardiovascular disease events in comparison to medical record adjudication and a statewide hospital morbidity database: the AusDiab study. Intern Med J. 2009;39(1):49–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2008.01864.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bolland MJ, Barber A, Doughty RN, Grey A, Gamble G, Reid IR. Differences between self-reported and verified adverse cardiovascular events in a randomised clinical trial. BMJ Open. 2013;3(3). doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002334.

  15. Langballe R, Mellemkjaer L, Malone KE, Lynch CF, John EM, Knight JA, et al. Systemic therapy for breast cancer and risk of subsequent contralateral breast cancer in the WECARE study. Breast Cancer Res. 2016;18(1):65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-016-0726-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Lynge E, Sandegaard JL, Rebolj M. The Danish National Patient Register. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39(7 Suppl):30–3. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494811401482.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Alexandre Andersen, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, for data management and computer support, the women who participated in the WECARE studies, and The Women’s Environmental Cancer and Epidemiology (WECARE) Study Collaborative Group for their important contributions:

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (Coordinating Center) Investigators and Staff: Jonine L. Bernstein Ph.D. (WECARE study P.I.); Marinela Capanu Ph.D.; Xiaolin Liang M.D.; Irene Orlow Ph.D.; Anne S. Reiner M.P.H.; Mark Robson, M.D.; Meghan Woods M.P.H.

Collaborative Site Investigators: Leslie Bernstein Ph.D.; John D. Boice Jr. Sc.D.; Jennifer Brooks Ph.D.; Patrick Concannon Ph.D.; Dave V. Conti Ph.D.; David Duggan Ph.D.; Joanne W. Elena Ph.D., M.P.H.; Robert W. Haile Dr.P.H.; Esther M. John Ph.D.; Julia A. Knight Ph.D.; Charles F. Lynch M.D., Ph.D.; Kathleen E. Malone Ph.D.; Lene Mellemkjær Ph.D.; Jørgen H. Olsen M.D. DMSc.; Daniela Seminara Ph.D. M.P.H.; Roy E. Shore Ph.D., Dr.P.H.; Marilyn Stovall Ph.D.; Daniel O. Stram Ph.D.; Marc Tischkowitz M.D., Ph.D.; Duncan C. Thomas Ph.D.

Collaborative Site Staff: Kristina Blackmore M.Sc.; Anh T. Diep; Judy Goldstein B.A.; Irene Harris B.S., C.M.D.; Rikke Langballe M.P.H.; Cecilia O’Brien; Susan Smith M.P.H.; Rita Weathers M.S.; Michele West Ph.D.

Funding

The research was supported by National Institutes of Health (grant number U01 CA83178, R01 CA97397, R01 CA129639, R01 CA114236, and P30 CA008748). The funding source had no role in the design, in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lene Mellemkjær.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The WECARE study was approved by the institutional review board and the ethical committee system in Denmark. All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Membership in the WECARE Study Collaborative Group is provided in the Acknowledgments

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 21 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Langballe, R., John, E.M., Malone, K.E. et al. Agreement between self-reported and register-based cardiovascular events among Danish breast cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv 12, 95–100 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-017-0648-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-017-0648-6

Keywords

Navigation