ArticleESMO real world data and digital oncology2026
Mapping population-based cancer registries in Europe: coverage, data availability, and capacity for real-world data generation.
Article in ESMO real world data and digital oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Population-based cancer registries (PBCRs) are essential for cancer surveillance and control yet their capacity and coverage vary across Europe. This study presents the first descriptive results of a survey mapping European PBCRs, with a particular focus on registry coverage, data availability, timeliness, and selected aspects of readiness for real-world data (RWD) generation. Materials and methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in early 2026 within European Union Joint Action CancerWatch. A comprehensive questionnaire (>700 items, 15 sections) was distributed to 192 European PBCRs across 45 countries, covering organisational, legal, and technical aspects. Results: A total of 175 (91.1%) PBCRs completed the survey. Of these, 151 were general registries collecting data for all cancer sites and age groups, representing 39 countries. Most countries have national registries or integrate data from multiple regional registries into a national dataset; however, population coverage remains incomplete in some regions. Data timeliness could be improved, as only 69% of countries provide cancer incidence data within 2 years. European PBCRs show substantial variability in digital infrastructure and data integration capacity, ranging from basic data linkage systems to partially or fully automated infrastructures. Over 60% operate within fragmented data exchange systems and one-third reported no/limited awareness of European Health Data Space (EHDS) requirements. Conclusions: This survey provides the first comprehensive overview of European PBCR coverage, data availability, timeliness, and selected organisational and technical characteristics relevant to RWD generation. Although European PBCRs provide broad population coverage, they remain heterogeneous in digital maturity, data integration capacity, and timeliness, limiting their ability to support the generation of RWD and to meet EHDS requirements. Strengthened infrastructure, interoperability, and coordinated European action are needed, alongside a standardised, publicly accessible PBCR inventory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.