This website and third-party tools we use rely on cookies for the best user experience. By selecting "I agree", you agree to cookie usage as described in our Privacy Policy.
92 posters, 1 audios, 1 topics, 567 authors, 81 institutions
ePostersLive by SciGen Technologies S.A. All rights reserved.
24-26 February 2026 | Edinburgh, Scotland

P69
Title: Using multiple imputation to account for missing stage and to generate a population-based late-stage incidence rate
Authors & affilliations: Shane Johnson1,2,5, Kirstin Roberts1,2, Sophia Lowes1, Fahmina Fardus-Reid1, Carolynn Gildea2, Sean McPhail2, Jason Poole3, David Foord3, Lorna Wills1, Samantha Hinks3, Mark Rutherford4, Matthew Barclay5, Jon Shelton1
1Cancer Intelligence, Cancer Research UK, 2National Disease Registration Service, NHS England, 3Cancer Analysis and Insights Team, NHS England, 4Division of Public Health & Epidemiology, University of Leicester, 5Epidemiology of Cancer Healthcare & Outcomes, University College London
Background:
Reliable stage at diagnosis data are important for monitoring ambitions to diagnose cancers at an earlier stage.
Completeness of staging data is variable over time, making accurate population-based surveillance of stage at diagnosis difficult.
As an alternative to stage proportion metrics1, a rate-based metric of stage at diagnosis has been proposed to aid interpretation of trends, by taking into account population and age structure, and changes in cancer incidence over time.
We aimed to develop a robust multiple imputation model for missing stage data, enabling calculation of incidence rates by stage at diagnosis.
Methods:
Data were extracted for cancer diagnoses in England from 2014 to 2022 from the National Cancer Registration Dataset (NCRD). Multiple imputation (MI) models were run to impute missing stage at diagnosis values.
Key variables included in the imputation models:
tumour characteristics (diagnosis year, stage at diagnosis, cancer site, route to diagnosis [screening, emergency presentation or other])
patient characteristics (age, gender and deprivation quintile)
treatment (fact of first systemic anti-cancer therapy, radiotherapy and surgery2)
vital status (at 12 months post-diagnosis for cumulative hazard3)
Stage distribution of the original and imputed datasets were compared to visualise the impact of stage imputation.
We conducted a sensitivity analysis where we compared imputation results from models with and without treatment information. Using complete case data, we made 20% of known stage values missing-completely-at-random. Stage was imputed using each model and we assessed concordance between complete case and each set of simulated stage values using:
Stage distribution
Cohen’s kappa – measure of agreement between the known and imputed stage values4
National age- and gender- standardised late-stage (stage 3 and 4) incidence rates were calculated for each imputed dataset and pooled using Rubin’s rules to provide an average rate5.
Results:
After imputing missing stage, late-stage incidence rates were more consistent and higher over time compared to incidence rates prior to imputation (Figure 1). Late-stage incidence rates in 2022 were 282 late-stage diagnoses per 100,000 persons where stage was imputed compared to 203 prior to imputation.
Around 19% of the original dataset had missing stage values (Figure 2). After stage imputation, stage 4 increased by 6.4 percentage points and stage 1 increased by 4.5 percentage points. This is because stage 4 was more common (34%) than stage 1 disease (24%) in the imputed missing stage patients.
Sensitivity analysis showed models with and without treatment imputed a similar stage distribution to the complete case known stage dataset. Average weighted Cohen’s kappa values showed there was higher agreement when treatment was included in the model (0.42), compared to the model without treatment (0.30).
Conclusions:
Multiple imputation can be a useful tool to address challenges ofmissing data in cancer registries.
Using national registry data to include both survival and treatment information has enhanced the strength of the model.
For the 19% of records missing stage, the imputed values indicated that stage 4 diagnoses were predicted more often than other stages.
Our sensitivity results showed that including treatment details in the model improved accuracy in imputation at a tumour-level.
Use of MI brings more stability to rates of stage of disease and can be used for creating indicators to support the evaluation and impact of national cancer strategies.
References:
1. National Disease Registration Service, NHS England. Staging data in England. 2025. Available: https://nhsd-ndrs.shinyapps.io/staging_data_in_england/
2. National Disease Registration Service, NHS England. Linking treatment data for cancer diagnoses CAS SOP 4v10. 2025. Available: https://digital.nhs.uk/ndrs/data/data-outputs/cancer-data-hub/cancer-treatments
3. Keogh R, Morris T. Multiple imputation in Cox regression when there are time‐varying effects of covariates. Statistics in Medicine. 2018;37(15):3661-3678.
4. Cohen J. Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1960;20:37-46.
5. Rubin D. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York; Chichester: Wiley. 1987.
Email is required but is not shown publicly.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment.