Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

The evolution of the population-based cancer registry

Nature Reviews Cancer volume 6, pages 603–612 (2006)Cite this article

Key Points

  • Population-based cancer registries (PBCRs) aim to identify all cases of cancer that occur in a defined population. A defined set of variables is recorded for each case; the minimum number is 10, but most registries have a more extensive dataset.

  • The basic role of PBCRs is to calculate the incidence of cancer at different sites, but most can provide more extensive information (for example, on tumour histology, stage at diagnosis, place and nature of treatment, and survival).

  • Incidence of cancer is synonymous with diagnosis, and the number of cases detected is influenced by diagnostic practices, especially with respect to screening. This must be considered when comparing incidence rates between populations and over time.

  • Cancer registries have been widely used in epidemiological research. Descriptive studies use the registry database to examine differences in the incidence (or survival) of cancer, according to variables associated with place (of residence, or of birth), time and personal characteristics (such as sex, ethnicity and social status). They are also widely used to follow up specific groups of individuals (cohorts) to detect the occurrence of new cases of cancer.

  • PBCRs are an essential component of a fully developed cancer-control programme. In addition to providing information on current and future needs for services, they are used to monitor programmes of prevention, early detection and cure (treatment).

  • PBCRs are becoming more widely involved in studies of the process of clinical care of cancer patients. Lack of clinical detail on cases is offset by the representative nature of the patients studied.

  • The first PBCRs were established over 60 years ago. Their numbers have increased progressively; In 1966, 32 registries reported their results in volume I of Cancer Incidence in Five Continents, and 40 years later, there were 449 members of the International Association of Cancer Registries covering 21% of the world population.

Abstract

The idea of recording information on all cancer cases in defined communities dates from the first half of the twentieth century, and there has been a steady growth in the number of such cancer registries since. Originally, they were concerned primarily with describing cancer patterns and trends. Later, many were able to follow up the registered patients and calculate survival. In the last 20 years the role of registries has expanded further to embrace the planning and evaluation of cancer control activities, and the care of individual cancer patients. This Review looks at the current status of cancer registration practice and use from an international perspective, mindful that the registration of cancer has expanded into a global activity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Cancer registry coverage; the geographic coverage (per cent of total population) of cancer registries by region.
Figure 2: Members of the European Network of Cancer Registres in July 2004.
Figure 3: Differences between incidence and mortality rates.
Figure 4: Survival from breast cancer in Europe.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Union Internationale Contre le Cancer. Cancer Incidence in Five Continents Vol. I (eds Doll, R., Payne, P. & Waterhouse, J. A. H.), (Union Internationale Contre le Cancer, Geneva, 1966).

  2. Jensen O. M . et al. (eds). Cancer Registration, Principles and Methods No. 95 (IARC, Lyon, 1991).Still the standard text on the technicalities of cancer registration, although a little old, and with little detail on more modern concepts of automation of cancer registry procedures.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Menck, H. & Smart, C. (eds). Central Cancer Registries, Design, Management, and Use. (Hargood Academic Publishers, Switzerland, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hutchison, L. L., Roffers, S. D. & Fritz, A. G. (eds). Cancer Registry Management, Principles and Practice (Kendal Hunt, Iowa, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Warren, J. L., Klabunde, C. N., Schrag, D., Bach, P. B. & Riley, G. F. Overview of the SEER-Medicare data, content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population. Med. Care 40, 5–18 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brooks, J. M., Chrischilles, E., Scott, S., Ritho, J. & Chen-Hardee, S. Information gained from linking SEER cancer registry data to state-level hospital discharge abstracts. Med. Care 38, 1131–1140 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. McNally, R. J., Alston, R. D., Cairns, D. P., Eden, O. B. & Birch, J. M. Geographical and ecological analyses of childhood acute leukaemias and lymphomas in north-west England. Br. J. Haematol. 123, 60–65 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Parkin, D. M., Chen, V. W., Ferlay, J., Galceran, J., Storm, H. H & Whelan S. L. Comparability and quality control in cancer registration. IARC Technical Report No. 19. (International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, 1994).

  9. Bullard, J., Coleman, M. P., Robinson, D., Lutz, J. M., Bell, J., Peto, J. Completeness of cancer registration: a new method for routine use. Br. J. Cancer 82 1111–1116 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Doll, R. & Peto, R. Sources of bias in estimating trends in cancer mortality, incidence, and curability. Quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of cancer in the United States today. (Oxford University Press, Oxford & New York 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Travis, L. B. et al. Cancer survivorship — genetic susceptibility and second primary cancers: research strategies and recommendations. J. Natl Cancer. Inst. 98, 15–25 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. IARC/IACR Working Group. International rules for multiple primary cancers (ICD-O 3rd Edition). Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 14, 307–308 (2005).

  13. Wells, W. A., Carney, P. A., Eliassen, M. S., Tosteson, A. N. & Greenberg, E. R. Statewide study of diagnostic agreement in breast pathology. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 90, 142–145 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Saxen, E. A. in Trends in Cancer Incidence, Causes and Practical Implications (ed. Magnus, K) 5–16 (Hemisphere, Washington DC, 1982). An excellent and balanced discussion of some of the pitfalls in interpreting cancer incidence and mortality data.

    Google Scholar 

  15. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Breast Cancer Screening (IARC Press, Lyon, 2002).

  16. Colonna, M. et al. Incidence of thyroid cancer in adults recorded by French cancer registries (1978–1997). Eur. J. Cancer 38, 1762–8 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Quinn, M. & Babb, P. Patterns and trends in prostate cancer incidence, survival, prevalence and mortality. Part II individual countries. BJU International 90, 174–184 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. US National Cancer Institute. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2003. US National Cancer Institute [online], (2006).

  19. Legler, J. M., Feuer, E. J., Potosky, A. L., Merrill, R. M. & Kramer, B. S. The role of prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing patterns in recent prostate cancer incidence decline in the United States. Cancer Causes Control 9, 519–527 (1998). An example of linkage between independent data files (the cancer registrations of SEER and MEDICARE records, in the United States). It was possible to study prosate cancer incidence in men having a first time, or subsequent, PSA screening test.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Etzioni, R. et al. Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening, lessons from U. S. prostate cancer incidence trends. J. Natl Cancer. Inst. 94, 981–990 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Parkin, D. M. et al. (eds). Cancer in Africa, Epidemiology and Prevention (IARC, Lyon, 2003).

  22. Parkin D. M., Whelan S., Ferlay J. & Storm H. (eds) Cancer Incidence in Five Continents Vol. I–VIII (IARC CancerBase No. 7, Lyon, 2005). This booklet (with an accompanying CD) contains all of the data published in the first eight volumes of Cancer Incidence in Five Continents , together with software for extracting them and for presenting the results. It enables the analysis of time trends in incidence for populations covered by a cancer registry for a period of 15 or more years.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Parkin, D. M. Whelan, S. L., Ferlay, J., Teppo, L. & Thomas, D. B. (eds). Cancer Incidence in Five Continents, Volume VIII (IARC, Lyon, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Greenwald, P., Sondik, E. J. & Young, J. L. Emerging roles for cancer registries in cancer control. Yale J. Biol. Med. 59, 561–566 (1986).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Armstrong, B. K. The role of the cancer registry in cancer control. Cancer Causes Control 3, 569–579 (1992). A review of the contemporary work of cancer registries by a cancer epidemiologist and health adminisrator. Proposes a widening of the role of registries in the field of cancer control, and a useful classification of the components thereof.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Glaser, S. L., Clarke, C. A., Gomez, S. L., O'Malley, C. D., Purdie, D. M. & West, D. W. Cancer surveillance research, a vital subdiscipline of cancer epidemiology. Cancer Causes Control 16, 1009–1019 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Boyle, P. & Zaridze, D. G. Colorectal cancer as a disease of the environment. Ecol. Dis. 2, 241–248 (1983).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cummings, J. H. & Bingham, S. A. Diet and the prevention of cancer. Brit. Med. J. 317, 1636–1640 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Armstrong, B. & Doll, R. Environmental factors and cancer incidence and mortality in different countries, with special reference to dietary practices. Int. J. Cancer, 15, 617–631 (1975).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. McMichael, A. J., McCall, M. G., Hartshorne, J. M. & Woodings, T. L. Patterns of gastrointestinal cancer in European migrants to Australia, the role of dietary change. Int. J. Cancer, 5, 431–437 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Key, T. J., Allen, N. E., Spencer, E. A. & Travis, R. C. The effect of diet on the risk of cancer. Lancet, 360, 861–868 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. World Health Organistation. National Cancer Control Programmes. Policies and Managerial Guidelines 2nd Edn (WHO press, Geneva, 2002).

  33. Mathers, C. D., Fat, D. M., Inoue, M., Rao, C. & Lopez, A. D. Counting the dead and what they died from, an assessment of the global status of cause of death data. Bull. of the World Health Organ. 83, 171–177 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Percy, C., Stanek, E. & Gloeckner, L. Accuracy of cancer death certificates and its effect on cancer mortality statistics. Am. J. Public Health 71, 242–250 (1981).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Breslow, N. E. Case Control Studies. in Handbook of Epidemiology (ed. Ahrens, W.) 287–319 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Chatterjee, N. et al. Risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and family history of lymphatic, hematologic, and other cancers. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 13, 1415–1421 (2004).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Morton, L. M., Cahill, J. & Hartge, P. Reporting participation in epidemiologic studies: a survey of practice. Am. J. Epidemiol. 163, 197–203 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kjaerheim, K. Occupational cancer research in the Nordic countries. Environ. Health Perspect. 107 Suppl 2, 233–238 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Frisch, M., Biggar, R. J., Engels, E. A., Goedert, J. J. AIDS-Cancer Match Registry Study. Association of cancer with AIDS-related immunosuppression in adults. JAMA 285, 1736–1745 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Travis, L. B. Therapy-associated solid tumors. Acta Oncol. 41, 323–333 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Greenwald, P., Cullen, J. W. & McKenna, J. W. Cancer prevention and control, from research through applications. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 79, 389–400 (1987).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Scottish Executive. NHS National Targets, Related to NHS National Priorities. Scottish Executive [online], (2003).

  43. World Health Organization. Targets for Health for All. European Health for All Series, No. 1. (WHO press, Copenhagen, 1985).

  44. European Union (European Parliament and Council Decision). Europe Against Cancer, action plan (1996)–(2002). Official Journal L 95, 16. 04. (1996).

  45. Bray, F. & Moller, B. Predicting the future burden of cancer. Nature Rev. Cancer 6, 63–74 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Møller, B. et al. Prediction of cancer incidence in the Nordic countries up to the year 2020. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 11 (Suppl.), S1–S96 (2002).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Coory, M. & Armstrong, B. K. Cancer Incidence Projections for Area and Rural Health Services in New South Wales (NSW Cancer Council, Sydney, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Stockton, D. Cancer in Scotland, Sustaining Change. Scottish Executive [online], (2004).

  49. Hakama, M. et al. (eds). Evaluating Effectiveness of Primary Prevention of Cancer (IARC, Lyon, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Hakulinen, T. et al. in Evaluating Effectiveness of Primary Prevention of Cancer (eds. Hakama, M. et al.) 133–148 (IA R C, Lyon, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Jemal, A., Cokkinides, V. E., Shafey, O. & Thun, M. J. Lung cancer trends in young adults, an early indicator of progress in tobacco control (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 14, 579–585 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Chang, M. H. et al. Universal hepatitis B vaccination in Taiwan and the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in children. Taiwan Childhood Hepatoma Study Group. N. Engl. J. Med. 336, 1855–1859 (1997). Uses the cancer registry in Taiwan to follow the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in cohorts of children who had been vaccinated against hepatitis B at birth. A classic illustration of how to monitor the effect of a preventive intervention.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Weir, H. K. et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer 1975–2000, featuring the uses of surveillance data for cancer prevention and control. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 95, 1276–1299 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Barnoya, J. & Glantz, S. Association of the California tobacco control program with declines in lung cancer incidence. Cancer Causes Control 15, 689–695 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Sankila R., Démaret E., Hakama M., Lynge E., Schouten L. & Parkin, D. M. (eds). Evaluation and Monitoring of Cancer Screening Programmes (European Commission, Brussels-Luxembourg, 2001). A series of papers describing how cancer registries can be, and have been used to evaluate the effectiveness of screening for cancer, and to monitor ongoing programmes.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Day, N. E., Williams, D. R. & Khaw, K. T. Breast cancer screening programmes, the development of a monitoring and evaluation system. Br. J. Cancer 59, 954–958 (1989). Describes the several 'intermediate endpoints' suitable for monitoring by cancer registries (tumour size, stage, rate of interval cancer), and how they relate to the reduction in mortality by screening.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Schouten, L. J., de-Rijke, J. M., Schlangen, J. T. & Verbeek, A. L. Evaluation of the effect of breast cancer screening by record linkage with the cancer registry, The Netherlands. J. Med. Screen. 5, 37–41 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. McCann, J., Stockton, D. & Day, N. Breast cancer in East Anglia, the impact of the breast screening programme on stage at diagnosis. J. Med. Screen. 5, 42–48 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Walter, S. D. & Day, N. E. Estimation of the duration of a pre-clinical disease state using screening data. Am. J. Epidemiol. 118, 865–886 (1983).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Johannesson, G., Geirsson, G. & Day, N. E. The effect of mass screening in Iceland 1965–1974, on the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer. Int. J. Cancer, 21, 418–425 (1978).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Hisamichi, S. et al. in Cancer Screening (eds. Miller, A. B. et al.) (Cambridge University Press, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Chu, K. C., Tarone, R. E., Chow, W. H., Hankey, B. F. & Ries, L. A. Temporal patterns in colorectal cancer incidence, survival, and mortality from 1950 through 1990. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 86, 997–1006 (1994).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Chu, K. C. et al. Recent trends in U. S. breast cancer incidence, survival, and mortality rates. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 88, 1571–1579 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Taplin, S. H et al. Mammography diffusion and trends in late stage breast cancer, evaluating outcomes in a population. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 6, 625–631 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Stockton, D., Davies, T., Day, N. & McCann, J. Retrospective study of reasons for improved survival in patients with breast cancer in east Anglia, earlier diagnosis or better treatment. BMJ 314, 472–475 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Brenner, H., Soderman, B. & Hakulinen, T. Use of period analysis for providing more up-to-date estimates of long-term survival rates, empirical evaluation among 370 000 cancer patients in Finland. Int. J. Epidemiol. 31, 456–462 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Trimble, E. L., Carter, C. L., Cain, D., Freidlin, B., Ungerleider, R. S., Friedman, M. A. Representation of older patients in cancer treatment trials. Cancer 74 (7 Suppl.), 2208–2214 (1994).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Young, J. L., Ries, L. G. & Pollack, E. S. Cancer patient survival among ethnic groups in the United States, 1973–79. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 73, 341–352 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Berrino F., Sant M., Verdecchia A., Capocaccia R., Hakulinen T. & Estève J. (eds). Survival of Cancer Patients in Europe, The EUROCARE Study. (IARC, Lyon, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Welch, H. G., Schwartz, L. M. & Woloshin, S. Are increasing 5-year survival rates evidence of success against cancer? JAMA 283, 2975–2978 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Peto, R., Boreham, J., Clarke, M., Davies, C. & Beral, V. UK and USA breast cancer deaths down 25% in year 2000 at ages 20–69 years. Lancet 355, 1822–1823 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Peto, R. Authors reply. Lancet 356, 593 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Clauser, S. B. Use of cancer performance measures in population health, a macro-level perspective. J. Natl Cancer Inst. Monographs 33, 142–154 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Sankila, R. et al. Evaluation of Clinical Care by Cancer Registries (IARC, Lyon, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Gillis, C. R. & Hole, D. J. Survival outcome of care by specialist surgeons in breast cancer. A study of 3786 patients in the West of Scotland. BMJ 312, 145–148 (1996). One of a series of studies by this group examining the effects of place of treatment, or (in this paper) the effect of specialization of the surgeon, in determining outcome from cancer. Other studies are described in Ref. 70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Menck, H. R. et al. The growth and maturation of the National Cancer Data Base. Cancer 80, 2296–2304 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Wagner, G. in The Role of the Registry in Cancer Control (eds Parkin, D. M., Wagner, G. & Muir, C. S.) No. 66 (IARC, Lyon, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Stocks, P. Cancer registration and studies of incidence by surveys. Bull. World Health Organ. 20, 697–715 (1959).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Clemmesen, J. Symp. on the geographic pathology and demography of cancer. Paris, Council for the Coordination of International Congresses of Medical Statistics (1951).

  80. Winkelmann, R. Cancer Registration Techniques in the New Independent State of the Former Soviet Union Technical Report No. 35. (IARC, Lyon, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Wingo, P. A. et al. A national framework for cancer surveillance in the United States. Cancer Causes Control 16, 151–170 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. IACR/IARC Working Group. Guidelines for confidentiality in population-based cancer registration. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 14, 309–327 (2005).

  83. Muir, C. S. & Demaret, E. in Cancer Registration, Principles and Methods (eds. Jensen, O. M. et al.) No. 95, 199–207 (IARC, Lyon, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Peto, J., Fletcher, O. & Gilham, C. Data protection, informed consent, and research. BMJ 328, 1029–1030 (2004). A leading article, with the provocative thesis that “The deaths that will occur because of the effects of data protection law on British medical research attract less publicity than child murders; but the pointless obstacles that bona fide researchers, particularly epidemiologists, face when they seek access to individual medical records are now causing serious damage.”

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Centers for Disease Control. Privacy, Confidentiality, Security and Legislation: The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Centers for Disease Control [online], (2006).

  86. European Union. The protection of individuals with regard to processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. Official Journal of the European union, 281, 31–50 (1995).

  87. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects (CIOMS, Geneva, 2002).

  88. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. World Medical Association [online], (2004).

  89. Ingelfinger, J. R., Drazen, J. M. Registry research and medical privacy. N. Engl J. Med. 350, 1452–1453 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. World Health Organization. Health Statistics and Health Information Systems. World Health Organization [online], (2005).

  91. Sant, M. et al. EUROCARE-3, survival of cancer patients diagnosed 1990–94 — results and commentary. Ann. Oncol. 14 (Suppl. 5), 61–118 (2003). Summarizes and comments on the main results of the EUROCARE-3 study, which analysed the survival of 1,815,584 adult cancer patients diagnosed from 1990–1994 in 22 European countries. The commentaries on the results for each site also briefly address the main problems in interpreting survival differences and trends.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Trials Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK

    Donald M. Parkin

Authors
  1. Donald M. Parkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donald M. Parkin.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Related links

Related links

DATABASES

National Cancer Institute

colon cancer

hepatocellular carcinoma

breast

prostate

FURTHER INFORMATION

Association of Nordic Cancer Registries

Australasian Association of Cancer Registries

Cancer Mondial

European Network of Cancer Registries

Groupe de Coordination pour l'epidemiologie et l’enregistrement du cancer dans les pays de Langue Latine

Gulf Center for Cancer Registration

International Association of Cancer Registries

North American Association of Central Cancer Registries

The Japanese Association of Cancer Registries

Glossary

Ecological study

A study in which the exposure to and outcome of disease are measured on populations or groups, rather than on individuals.

Disability-adjusted life years

(DALY) The years of life lost to premature death and years lived with a disability of specified severity and duration. One DALY is therefore one lost year of healthy life.

Comorbidity

The presence of coexisting or additional diseases with reference to an initial diagnosis or with reference to the index condition that is the subject of study. Comorbidity can affect both the ability of affected individuals to function and their survival; it can be used as a prognostic indicator for length of hospital stay, cost factors and outcome or survival.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Parkin, D. The evolution of the population-based cancer registry. Nat Rev Cancer 6, 603–612 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1948

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1948

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing