Catalog Advanced Search

Search by Categories
Search in Packages
Search by Format
Search by Date Range
Products are filtered by different dates, depending on the combination of live and on-demand components that they contain, and on whether any live components are over or not.
Start
End
Search by Keyword
Sort By
  • RDU Webinar Series: Use of Imputation Techniques for Modeling Missing Data in Population-based Cancer Registries

    Contains 1 Component(s) Recorded On: 05/20/2016

    This webinar series is sponsored by the Research and Data Use Steering Committee. The idea is to bring high quality presentations that were presented during the annual conference to a wider audience via webinar. If you have seen a presentation at the annual conference, or elsewhere, that you feel would benefit the larger NAACCR community, please suggest it be presented in this forum.

    The purpose of this webinar is to give a global overview of missing data issues and several different imputation techniques. We will also illustrate various applications of imputation techniques in population-based cancer registry settings. We will show improving completeness of biomarkers [e.g., estrogen receptor (ER) status] for breast cancer cases from population-based cancer registries through modeling techniques using standard assumption such as ER status is missing at random (MAR). Additionally, we will demonstrate use of novel imputation methods to perform sensitivity analyses if one suspects ER status is missing not at random (MNAR). The imputed databases are available to researchers for conducting a variety of analyses of breast cancer incidence trends through SEER*Stat software.

    Topic 1: Overview of Missing Data Issues and Several Different Imputation Techniques.

    Topic 2: Imputing Missing Estrogen Status (ER) Status for Breast Cancer Cases from Population-based Cancer Registries

    Topic 3: Imputing Estrogen Receptor (ER) status under a Missing Not At Random (MNAR) Assumption

    Presenters:

    Barnali Das, PhD
    Senior Statistician
    Westat

    Nadia Howlader, MS
    Mathematical Statistician
    Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute

    Rebecca Andridge, PhD
    Assistant Professor, Division of Biostatistics
    Ohio State University College of Public Health

  • RDU Webinar Series: A Discussion on KRAS Testing and Treatment

    Contains 1 Component(s) Recorded On: 05/04/2016

    This webinar series is sponsored by the Research and Data Use Steering Committee. The idea is to bring high quality presentations that were presented during the annual conference to a wider audience via webinar. If you have seen a presentation at the annual conference, or elsewhere, that you feel would benefit the larger NAACCR community, please suggest it be presented in this forum.

    Capturing KRAS Testing for Stage IV Colorectal Cancer Cases: A Tale of Two States: The objective of this presentation is to provide background information on the KRAS Site-Specific Factor, explain the quality control approach and data sources used to re-review cases, describe findings related to the frequency, data sources and timing of missed KRAS testing, and present models that illustrate patient and facility characteristics associated with KRAS testing. In addition, we plan to discuss the potential implications of our findings.

    KRAS Testing and Treatment among Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: We will discuss findings on KRAS testing and treatment patterns from the Comparative Effectiveness Research project conducted with 10 registries in CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries. The objectives are to understand KRAS biomarker testing among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and to explore the association of having a documented KRAS test and KRAS results to first line treatment, particularly EGRF inhibitor treatment. We will also compare our results with similar, earlier studies using data from SEER and eight Cancer Research Network sites.

    Presenters:

    Mary Anne Lynch, MPH
    Early Case Capture (PYAC) Study Coordinator
    Louisiana Tumor Registry

    Mary E Charlton, PhD
    Assistant Professor in the Department of Epidemiology
    Co-Investigator of the Iowa Cancer Registry

    Lori A. (Loria) Pollack, MD, MPH
    CAPT, U.S. Public Health Service| Medical Epidemiologist,
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

  • Proposed Updates to the Common Rule: An Overview of the NPRM

    Contains 1 Component(s) Recorded On: 10/30/2015

    Proposed Updates to the Common Rule: An Overview of the NPRM On September 2, 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and fifteen other Federal Departments and Agencies announced that a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) was put on public display and was published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2015.

    Proposed Updates to the Common Rule: An Overview of the NPRM On September 2, 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and fifteen other Federal Departments and Agencies announced that a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) was put on public display and was published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2015. This NPRM proposes changes to the Common Rule (45 CFR 46 Subpart A) with the goal of better protecting human subjects involved in research, while facilitating valuable research and reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators. It also includes discussion of many of the comments received in relation to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that was released in July 2011. Included within this 519-page NPRM are approximately 45 major proposals to the Common Rule and 88 questions to which DHHS is requesting comment. Institutions involved in the conduct of human research should be aware that many of the proposals put forth in the NPRM, if implemented, would have profound and long lasting effects on the conduct and oversight of human research in the future with substantial implications for the workload of investigators, IRBs, and institutions. This webinar will provide a summary of the key portions of the NPRM and provide an opportunity for audience questions, feedback and discussion.

    Presenters:

    Tom Bechert, Director, Huron Consulting Group Tom has 11 years of experience working with research institutions to enhance compliance, maximize the efficiency of research operations, and improve the overall effectiveness of research operations within universities, academic medical centers, cancer centers, and community hospitals.

    Madeleine Williams, Senior Director, Huron Consulting Group Maddie has over 15 years of research experience and assists clients with and human research protection program evaluation and accreditation, institutional review board operational support, research biorepository design and development, and regulatory compliance evaluations.

  • The New Death Clearance Manual: Minimum Requirements and Best Practices for Conducting Death Clearance

    Contains 1 Component(s)

    NAACCR released the newly revised Death Clearance Manual in December 2014 for use beginning with 2013 deaths.

    NAACCR released the newly revised Death Clearance Manual in December 2014 for use beginning with 2013 deaths. The Manual contains minimum requirements for performing death clearance activities that are the least NAACCR member registries must do to complete the process. Chapters 2-4 of the Manual containing the minimum requirements will be discussed in detail. Chapter 5, containing guidelines and best practices to get the most from Death Clearance, will be presented as will a review of the glossary contents. Presented by Susan Bolick and Bobbi Jo Matt of the NAACCR Death Clearance WG.

  • Life Tables: Concept and Methods

    Contains 1 Component(s) Recorded On: 09/14/2015

    This webinar will provide an overview of life tables, introduce basic concepts and explain why they are used in cancer registry research. How to construct a life table will be explained and several smoothing methods will be discussed. Presented by Bin Huang University of Kentucky.

    This webinar will provide an overview of life tables, introduce basic concepts and explain why they are used in cancer registry research. How to construct a life table will be explained and several smoothing methods will be discussed. Presented by Bin Huang University of Kentucky.

  • Producing Delay Adjusted Rates and Trends Using SEER* Stat and Joinpoint

    Contains 1 Component(s) Recorded On: 07/23/2015

    Producing Delay Adjusted Rates and Trends Using SEER* Stat and Joinpoint.

    Timely and accurate calculation of cancer incidence rates are hampered by reporting delay, the time elapsed before a diagnosed cancer case is reported to the cancer registries. While cases in NAACCR are first reported about two years after the end of a diagnosis year (e.g. 2012 cases were reported in the December 2014 submission), in subsequent submissions the data are updated as either new cases are found or new information is received about previously submitted cases. The idea behind modeling reporting delay is to adjust the current case count to account for anticipated future corrections (both additions and deletions) to the data. These adjusted counts are valuable in more precisely determining current cancer trends. While previously, delay adjustment was only available for the SEER 9 and SEER 13 registry groups, a coordinated effort by NCI, CDC and NAACCR has led to a unified approach to estimate and report delay-adjusted rates across all of the US and Canada. While eventually we hope to allow delay adjustment for regions of the country and even individual registries, this first year of release, delay adjusted rates will only be available for SEER 9, SEER 13, SEER 18, the U.S., and Canada. After a brief introduction to delay adjustment, this talk will demonstrate how to produce delay adjusted rates in SEER*Stat, and how to export the rates to Joinpoint to produce trends in delay adjusted rates.

  • Journal Club: Ovarian cancer incidence trends and changing patterns of menopausal hormone therapy use in the United States

    Contains 1 Component(s) Recorded On: 06/23/2015

    The NAACCR Journal Club's Presentation on Ovarian cancer incidence trends and changing patterns of menopausal hormone therapy use in the United States.

    Ovarian cancer incidence trends in relation to changing patterns of menopausal hormone therapy use in the United States. Description: After a report from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) in 2002, a precipitous decline in menopausal hormonal therapy (MHT) use in the United States was linked to a decline in breast cancer incidence rates. Given that MHT use is also associated with increased ovarian cancer risk, a recent analysis in NAACCR evaluated whether ovarian cancer incidence rates changed after 2002 using age-period-cohort (APC) models. This webinar provides an overview of the ovarian cancer incidence rate changes before (1995 to 2002) and after (2003 to 2008) the WHI report and describes the age-period-cohort modeling approach.

  • Cancer Surveillance Webinar Series - Dynamically Generating Statistical Cancer Reports Efficiently: Getting the best bang for your buck

    Contains 1 Component(s) Recorded On: 01/29/2015

    This session focused on dynamically generating statistical cancer reports efficiently and "getting the best bang for your buck".

    Monitoring regional cancer rates is critical for strategic local and state planning and can provide a “report card" on the health of a community and insight into how well cancer prevention programs are working. However, with increasingly scarce monetary resources, producing local cancer reports on a regular basis can be challenging. We tried to develop best practices for creating effective and easily updateable cancer reports in a timely manner using limited resources. NAACCR and NCI both have an abundant array of freely available software tools for analyzing cancer statistics. Utilizing these tools in conjunction with integrated Microsoft Office products resulted in quicker updates for our Cancer in Utah reports. Ultimately, the key to refining and streamlining the process was planning. Once specific table and figure formats were developed, updating them from year to year became much quicker and less resource intensive.

    You can see the reports Kim discusses during the presenation
    Cancer In Utah: An Overview of Cancer Incidence and Mortality from 1973-2010

    Presenter: Kim Herget

    Questions can be sent to Kim Herget, Mstat of the Utah Cancer Registry, University of Utah kim.herget@hsc.utah.edu