Abstract

Background The Asbest chrysotile cohort was set up in Asbest town, Sverdlovsk oblast, Russian Federation, among the current and former workforce of the world's largest operating chrysotile mine and its processing mills, to investigate cancer risk in relation to occupational exposure to chrysotile.

Objectives The cohort of 35,837 people was followed-up for mortality using cause-of-death information from official death certificates issued by the Civil Act Registration Office (ZAGS) of Sverdlovsk oblast from 1976 to 2015. Data were also retrieved from the electronic cause-of-death registry of the Medical Information Analytical Centre (MIAC) of Sverdlovsk oblast, which was launched in 1990 and operates independently of ZAGS. The objectives were to compare the completeness of record linkage (RL) with ZAGS and with MIAC, and to compare the agreement of cause-of-death information obtained from ZAGS and from MIAC, with a focus on malignant neoplasms.

Methods RL completeness of identifying cohort members in ZAGS and in MIAC was compared for the period 1990 to 2015. In the next step, for the comparison of the retrieved cause-of-death information, 5,463 deaths (1,009 from cancer) were used that were registered in 2002 to 2015, when causes of death were coded using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD-10) nomenclature by MIAC. For ZAGS, original cause-of-death text from the death certificates was obtained and then coded according to ICD-10 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization (IARC/WHO). Agreement was evaluated at various levels of detail, and reasons for any disagreements between the MIAC and the IARC/WHO ICD-10-coded cancer diagnosis were systematically explored.

Results A total of 10,886 deaths were obtained from all avenues of follow-up for the period 1990 to 2015 in the cohort; 10,816 (99.4%) of these were found in ZAGS. This percentage was 88.3% if only automated deterministic RL was used and 99.4% when deterministic RL was complemented with manual searches of cohort members. Comparison of the cause-of-death information showed agreement of 97.9% at the ICD-10 main group level between ZAGS (coded by IARC/WHO) and MIAC. Of 1,009 cancer deaths, 679 (67.3%) cases had identical coding, 258 (25.6%) cases corresponded at the three-character ICD-10 level, 36 (3.6%) had codes that were within the same anatomical or morphological cluster, and for only 36 (3.6%) cases were major discrepancies identified. Altogether, the agreement between IARC/WHO coding of cause-of-death information from ZAGS and MIAC coding of malignant neoplasms was therefore 96.4%.

Conclusions RL completeness and agreement of cause-of-death information obtained from ZAGS and from MIAC were both very high. This is reassuring for the quality of cancer mortality follow-up of the Asbest chrysotile cohort. For future epidemiological studies in the Russian Federation, ZAGS appears to be a reliable information source for mortality follow-up, if the automated RL is complemented with manual searches of cohort members. MIAC is a good resource for prospective studies.

中文翻译：

---

俄罗斯联邦死因跟踪的两种信息来源的比较：石贝温石棉队列研究。

 抽象的

背景Asbest 温石棉队列是在俄罗斯联邦斯维尔德洛夫斯克州 Asbest 镇设立的，成员包括世界上最大的温石棉矿山及其加工厂的现任和前任劳动力，旨在调查与职业接触温石棉相关的癌症风险。

目标使用斯维尔德洛夫斯克州民法登记办公室 (ZAG​​S) 1976 年至 2015 年间签发的官方死亡证明中的死因信息，对 35,837 人的死亡率进行随访。数据还从电子死因中检索。斯维尔德洛夫斯克州医疗信息分析中心 (MIAC) 的死亡登记处于 1990 年启动，独立于 ZAGS 运营。目的是比较 ZAGS 和 MIAC 记录链接 (RL) 的完整性，并比较从 ZAGS 和 MIAC 获得的死因信息的一致性，重点是恶性肿瘤。

方法比较 1990 年至 2015 年期间 ZAGS 和 MIAC 中识别队列成员的 RL 完整性。下一步，为了比较检索到的死因信息，使用了 5,463 例死亡（其中 1,009 例死于癌症），其中2002 年至 2015 年登记，当时死亡原因采用 MIAC 的国际疾病和相关健康问题统计分类第 10 版 (ICD-10) 命名法进行编码。对于 ZAGS，从死亡证明中获取原始死因文本，然后根据国际癌症研究机构/世界卫生组织 (IARC/WHO) 的 ICD-10 进行编码。对不同细节层面的一致性进行了评估，并系统地探讨了 MIAC 与 IARC/WHO ICD-10 编码癌症诊断之间任何分歧的原因。

结果1990年至2015年期间，通过所有途径的随访，该队列中总共有10,886例死亡；其中 10,816 个 (99.4%) 在 ZAGS 中被发现。如果仅使用自动确定性 RL，则该百分比为 88.3%；如果确定性 RL 辅以队列成员的手动搜索，则该百分比为 99.4%。死因信息比较显示，ZAGS（由 IARC/WHO 编码）与 MIAC 在 ICD-10 主要组水平上的一致性为 97.9%。在 1,009 例癌症死亡中，679 例 (67.3%) 病例具有相同的编码，258 例 (25.6%) 病例对应于三字符 ICD-10 级别，36 例 (3.6%) 具有相同解剖或形态簇内的代码，并且仅 36 例 (3.6%) 的案例存在重大差异。因此，IARC/WHO 对 ZAGS 死因信息的编码与 MIAC 对恶性肿瘤的编码之间的一致性为 96.4%。

结论从 ZAGS 和 MIAC 获得的死因信息的 RL 完整性和一致性都非常高。这对于 Asbest 温石棉队列的癌症死亡率随访质量来说是令人放心的。对于俄罗斯联邦未来的流行病学研究，如果自动 RL 与队列成员的手动搜索相辅相成，ZAGS 似乎是死亡率随访的可靠信息来源。 MIAC 是前瞻性研究的良好资源。