Lynne Penberthy1, Donna McClish, Claudine Manning, Sheldon Retchin, Tom Smith. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Quality Health Care, and Massey Cancer Center, Medical College of Virginia of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia 22398-0306, USA. lpenbert@mail2.vcu.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As cancer diagnosis and treatment has moved to the outpatient healthcare setting, traditional cancer surveillance tools are less effective for complete and unbiased capture of incident cases. This study evaluates the potential for Medicare data to supplement cancer surveillance in a unique manner by using a standard that is independent of a central cancer registry. DESIGN: State cancer registry records were matched with Medicare data. Case validation included inpatient record abstraction combined with a mail/telephone survey of treating physicians. The positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity (capture rate), and potential additional cases were calculated for 6 Medicare claims-based case definitions. RESULTS: The PPV varied according to cancer site and definition, ranging from 70%-97% (prostate) to 87%-98% (breast). Sensitivity varied inversely with PPV, ranging from 51%-94% (breast) to 10%-88% (lung). The most important factors that predicted being missed by the registry were having no admission to an ACOS-certified hospital and no surgical treatment. CONCLUSION: Medicare data represent a valid resource for supplementing state cancer registries in surveillance efforts. This potential is especially applicable to cancers predominantly diagnosed and treated outside the hospital setting.
OBJECTIVE: As cancer diagnosis and treatment has moved to the outpatient healthcare setting, traditional cancer surveillance tools are less effective for complete and unbiased capture of incident cases. This study evaluates the potential for Medicare data to supplement cancer surveillance in a unique manner by using a standard that is independent of a central cancer registry. DESIGN: State cancer registry records were matched with Medicare data. Case validation included inpatient record abstraction combined with a mail/telephone survey of treating physicians. The positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity (capture rate), and potential additional cases were calculated for 6 Medicare claims-based case definitions. RESULTS: The PPV varied according to cancer site and definition, ranging from 70%-97% (prostate) to 87%-98% (breast). Sensitivity varied inversely with PPV, ranging from 51%-94% (breast) to 10%-88% (lung). The most important factors that predicted being missed by the registry were having no admission to an ACOS-certified hospital and no surgical treatment. CONCLUSION: Medicare data represent a valid resource for supplementing state cancer registries in surveillance efforts. This potential is especially applicable to cancers predominantly diagnosed and treated outside the hospital setting.
Authors: Lesley S Park; Janet P Tate; Maria C Rodriguez-Barradas; David Rimland; Matthew Bidwell Goetz; Cynthia Gibert; Sheldon T Brown; Michael J Kelley; Amy C Justice; Robert Dubrow Journal: J AIDS Clin Res Date: 2014-07
Authors: Phuong L Mai; Anne O Garceau; Barry I Graubard; Marsha Dunn; Timothy S McNeel; Lou Gonsalves; Mitchell H Gail; Mark H Greene; Gordon B Willis; Louise Wideroff Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-05-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Daniel C Beachler; Elizabeth L Yanik; Brook I Martin; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Sohail K Mirza; Richard A Deyo; Eric A Engels Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Cathy J Bradley; Julia Entwistle; Lindsay M Sabik; Richard C Lindrooth; Marcelo Perraillon Journal: Med Care Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Steven T Fleming; Ann S Hamilton; Susan A Sabatino; Gretchen G Kimmick; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Jean B Owen; Bin Huang; Wenke Hwang Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 2.983