Same People, Different Results: Categorizing Cancer Registry Cases Across the Rural-Urban Continuum.

BACKGROUND:Many rural-urban indexes are utilized in cancer research. This variation introduces inconsistencies between studies. Recommendations on index use have prioritized geographical unit over feasibility of inclusion in analysis. We evaluated rural-urban indexes and recommend one for use to increase comparability across studies. METHODS:We assessed 9 US rural-urban indexes regarding their respective rural and urban code ranges; geographical unit, land area, and population distributions; percent agreement; suitability for analysis; and integration feasibility for national, state, and local cancer research. We referenced 1569 Wisconsin Pancreatic Cancer Registry patients to demonstrate how index choice affects patient categorization. RESULTS:Six indexes categorized rural and urban areas. Indexes agreed on binary rural-urban designation for 88.8% of the US population. As ternary variables, they agreed for 83.4%. For cancer registry patients, this decreased to 73.4% and 60.4% agreement, respectively. Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC) performed the best in differentiating metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural counties; availability for retrospective and prospective studies; and continuous coding for analysis. CONCLUSIONS:Urban/rural patient categorization changed with index selection. We conclude that RUCC is an appropriate and feasible rural-urban index to include in cancer research, as it is standardly available in national cancer registries, can be matched to patient's county of residence for local research, and it had the least amount of fluctuation of the indices analyzed. Utilizing RUCC as a continuous variable across studies with a rural-urban component will increase reproducibility and comparability of results and eliminate rural-urban index choice as a potential source of discrepancy between studies.