Large prospective cohort studies may offer an opportunity to study the etiology and natural history of rare cancers. Cancer diagnoses in observational cohort studies are often self-reported. Little information exists on the validity of self-reported cancer diagnosis, especially rare cancers, in Canada. This study evaluated the validity of self-reported cancer diagnosis in Alberta's Tomorrow Project (ATP), a provincial cohort in Canada. ATP data were linked to the Alberta Cancer Registry (ACR). The first instance of self-reported cancer in a follow-up survey was compared to the first cancer diagnosis in the ACR after enrollment. The sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) were estimated for the reporting of cancer status, reporting of common or rare cancer, and reporting of site-specific cancer. Logistic regression analysis explored factors associated with false positive, false negative, and incorrect cancer site reporting. In the 30,843 ATP participants who consented to registry linkage, there were 810 primary cancer diagnoses in the ACR and 959 self-reports of first cancer post-enrollment, for a cancer status sensitivity of 92.1% (95% CI: 90.0-93.9) and PPV of 77.8% (95% CI: 75.0-80.4). Compared to common cancers, rare cancers had a lower sensitivity (62.8% vs. 89.6%) and PPV (35.8% vs. 84.5%). Participants with a rare cancer were more likely to report an incorrect site than those with a common cancer. Rare cancers were less likely to be captured by active follow-up than common cancers. While rare cancer research may be feasible in large cohort studies, registry linkage is necessary to capture rare cancer diagnoses completely and accurately.
Copyright © 2020 Emily Maplethorpe et al.