BACKGROUND: Hospital claims databases from acute care units are available nationwide and contain most patients at the beginning of their cancer. The goal is to define the ability of these databases to provide a number of incident breast cancer cases using identification methods. Two identification methods were assessed in three specialized sections of a teaching hospital. METHODS: The first method identified women who had at least one stay with a principal diagnosis of breast cancer. The second, which is more restrictive, identified women who had at least one stay with a principal diagnosis of breast cancer and a breast cancer-specific surgical treatment code. Both methods were applied to 4588 women 20 Years of age or older hospitalized in three specialized sections of the Hospices Civils de Lyon in 2000. To categorize these women in two groups, incident breast cancer cases or non-incident breast cancer cases, 150 women were randomized in each of two groups, one for incident breast cancer cases and one for non-incident breast cancer cases. Their medical records were used as references. RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity and their credibility intervals were respectively 99.4% (84-99.9) and 91.7% (90.3-93.3) for the first method and 93.8% (76.2-98.7) and 97.3% (96.1-98) for the second. Among women wrongly identified with an incident breast cancer in 2000, 75.4% (43/57) had a breast cancer that was not incident that Year with the first method, compared to 96% (24/25) with the second. Among these women wrongly identified with an incident breast cancer, coding errors of the principal diagnosis were found for 24.6% (14/57) of patients with the first method and for 4% (1/25) with the second. Their correction led to 99.2% (86.5-99.9) sensitivity and 92.9% (91.4-94.6) specificity for the first method and to 94.2% (76.5-98.7) sensitivity and 97.3% (96.2-98.1) specificity for the second. CONCLUSIONS: The second method using cancer-specific surgical codes appeared more specific with a slight loss in sensitivity. The use of identification methods to assess the number of incident cancer cases still have to be defined.
BACKGROUND: Hospital claims databases from acute care units are available nationwide and contain most patients at the beginning of their cancer. The goal is to define the ability of these databases to provide a number of incident breast cancer cases using identification methods. Two identification methods were assessed in three specialized sections of a teaching hospital. METHODS: The first method identified women who had at least one stay with a principal diagnosis of breast cancer. The second, which is more restrictive, identified women who had at least one stay with a principal diagnosis of breast cancer and a breast cancer-specific surgical treatment code. Both methods were applied to 4588 women 20 Years of age or older hospitalized in three specialized sections of the Hospices Civils de Lyon in 2000. To categorize these women in two groups, incident breast cancer cases or non-incident breast cancer cases, 150 women were randomized in each of two groups, one for incident breast cancer cases and one for non-incident breast cancer cases. Their medical records were used as references. RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity and their credibility intervals were respectively 99.4% (84-99.9) and 91.7% (90.3-93.3) for the first method and 93.8% (76.2-98.7) and 97.3% (96.1-98) for the second. Among women wrongly identified with an incident breast cancer in 2000, 75.4% (43/57) had a breast cancer that was not incident that Year with the first method, compared to 96% (24/25) with the second. Among these women wrongly identified with an incident breast cancer, coding errors of the principal diagnosis were found for 24.6% (14/57) of patients with the first method and for 4% (1/25) with the second. Their correction led to 99.2% (86.5-99.9) sensitivity and 92.9% (91.4-94.6) specificity for the first method and to 94.2% (76.5-98.7) sensitivity and 97.3% (96.2-98.1) specificity for the second. CONCLUSIONS: The second method using cancer-specific surgical codes appeared more specific with a slight loss in sensitivity. The use of identification methods to assess the number of incident cancer cases still have to be defined.
Authors: L Remontet; N Mitton; C M Couris; J Iwaz; F Gomez; F Olive; S Polazzi; A M Schott; B Trombert; N Bossard; M Colonna Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2008-08-21 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: C Quantin; E Benzenine; M Hägi; B Auverlot; M Abrahamowicz; J Cottenet; E Fournier; C Binquet; D Compain; E Monnet; A M Bouvier; A Danzon Journal: J Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2012-06-26