OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of using ICD-9-CM codes indicating metastases as a proxy to classify lung cancer patients by stage of disease. RESEARCH DESIGN: This retrospective database analysis used diagnosis codes to classify subjects to either localized or advanced-stage disease and then compared this classification to the tumor registry staging, which was considered as the 'gold standard.' SUBJECTS AND MEASURES: Study subjects included all lung cancer patients treated at our academic institution during 1996-1997, who were also members of a large insurance company. Data were derived from inpatient cancer-related claims linked with our institution's tumor registry data. Advanced-stage disease (stages II to IV) was defined by claims indicating lymph node involvement or metastases (ICD-9 codes 196-199.1). The tumor registry stagings of the disease for these patients were clustered into two groupings, stages 0-I (localized) and stages II-IV (advanced). RESULTS: Tumor registry entries were identified for 66/77 (85.7%) patients. A total of 19 out of 22 local disease patients (sensitivity of 86.4%) and 30 out of 44 advanced disease patients (sensitivity of 68.2%) were classified correctly by ICD-9 code. A total of 19 out of 33 patients with local disease codes (PPV of 57.6%) and 30 out of 33 patients with advanced disease codes (PPV = 90.9%) were properly identified. CONCLUSIONS: For a population of lung cancer patients in an academic institution who were under a private insurance plan, the ICD-9 coding was associated with a sensitivity and positive predictive values that were consistent with previously reported estimates using Medicare-SEER data. The use of such data to classify patients to disease stages should be executed with caution as under-reporting might exist. Continued attention to discharge abstracting will be needed to improve the validity of this technique.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of using ICD-9-CM codes indicating metastases as a proxy to classify lung cancerpatients by stage of disease. RESEARCH DESIGN: This retrospective database analysis used diagnosis codes to classify subjects to either localized or advanced-stage disease and then compared this classification to the tumor registry staging, which was considered as the 'gold standard.' SUBJECTS AND MEASURES: Study subjects included all lung cancerpatients treated at our academic institution during 1996-1997, who were also members of a large insurance company. Data were derived from inpatient cancer-related claims linked with our institution's tumor registry data. Advanced-stage disease (stages II to IV) was defined by claims indicating lymph node involvement or metastases (ICD-9 codes 196-199.1). The tumor registry stagings of the disease for these patients were clustered into two groupings, stages 0-I (localized) and stages II-IV (advanced). RESULTS:Tumor registry entries were identified for 66/77 (85.7%) patients. A total of 19 out of 22 local diseasepatients (sensitivity of 86.4%) and 30 out of 44 advanced diseasepatients (sensitivity of 68.2%) were classified correctly by ICD-9 code. A total of 19 out of 33 patients with local disease codes (PPV of 57.6%) and 30 out of 33 patients with advanced disease codes (PPV = 90.9%) were properly identified. CONCLUSIONS: For a population of lung cancerpatients in an academic institution who were under a private insurance plan, the ICD-9 coding was associated with a sensitivity and positive predictive values that were consistent with previously reported estimates using Medicare-SEER data. The use of such data to classify patients to disease stages should be executed with caution as under-reporting might exist. Continued attention to discharge abstracting will be needed to improve the validity of this technique.
Authors: Neetu Chawla; K Robin Yabroff; Angela Mariotto; Timothy S McNeel; Deborah Schrag; Joan L Warren Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Hava Izci; Tim Tambuyzer; Krizia Tuand; Victoria Depoorter; Annouschka Laenen; Hans Wildiers; Ignace Vergote; Liesbet Van Eycken; Harlinde De Schutter; Freija Verdoodt; Patrick Neven Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Hisham Hussan; Darrell M Gray; Alice Hinton; Somashekar G Krishna; Darwin L Conwell; Peter P Stanich Journal: World J Surg Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Eric M Mortensen; Laurel A Copeland; Mary Jo Pugh; Michael J Fine; Brandy Nakashima; Marcos I Restrepo; Rosa Malo de Molina; Antonio Anzueto Journal: Am J Med Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Eberechukwu Onukwugha; Candice Yong; Arif Hussain; Brian Seal; C Daniel Mullins Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2014-01-02 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Josep M Escribà; Laura Pareja; Laura Esteban; Jordi Gálvez; Angels Melià; Laura Roca; Ramon Clèries; Xavier Sanz; Montse Bustins; María J Pla; Miguel J Gil; Josep M Borrás; Josepa Ribes Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2014-09-01