BACKGROUND: Large health care databases are increasingly used to examine the dissemination and benefits and harms of chemotherapy treatment in routine practice, particularly among patients excluded from trials (eg, the elderly). Misclassification of chemotherapy could bias estimates of frequency and association, warranting an updated assessment. METHODS: We evaluated the validity of Medicare claims to identify receipt of chemotherapy and specific agents delivered to elderly stage II/III colorectal (CRC), in situ/early-stage breast, non-small-cell lung, and ovarian cancer patients using the National Cancer Institute's Patterns of Care studies (POC) as the gold standard. The POC collected data on chemotherapy treatment by reabstracting hospital records, contacting physicians, and reviewing medical records. Patients' POC data were linked and compared with their Medicare claims for 2 to 12 months postdiagnosis. κ, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the receipt of any chemotherapy and specific agents. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity of Medicare claims to identify any chemotherapy were high across all cancer sites. We found substantial variation in validity across agents, by site and administration modality. Capecitabine, an oral CRC treatment, was identified in claims with high specificity (98%) but low sensitivity (47%), whereas oxaliplatin, an intravenously administered CRC agent had higher sensitivity (75%) and similar specificity (97%). CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of chemotherapy and specific intravenous agents can be identified using Medicare claims, showing improvement from prior reports; yet, variation exists. Future studies should assess newly approved agents and the impact of coverage decisions for these agents under the Medicare Part D program.
BACKGROUND: Large health care databases are increasingly used to examine the dissemination and benefits and harms of chemotherapy treatment in routine practice, particularly among patients excluded from trials (eg, the elderly). Misclassification of chemotherapy could bias estimates of frequency and association, warranting an updated assessment. METHODS: We evaluated the validity of Medicare claims to identify receipt of chemotherapy and specific agents delivered to elderly stage II/III colorectal (CRC), in situ/early-stage breast, non-small-cell lung, and ovarian cancerpatients using the National Cancer Institute's Patterns of Care studies (POC) as the gold standard. The POC collected data on chemotherapy treatment by reabstracting hospital records, contacting physicians, and reviewing medical records. Patients' POC data were linked and compared with their Medicare claims for 2 to 12 months postdiagnosis. κ, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the receipt of any chemotherapy and specific agents. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity of Medicare claims to identify any chemotherapy were high across all cancer sites. We found substantial variation in validity across agents, by site and administration modality. Capecitabine, an oral CRC treatment, was identified in claims with high specificity (98%) but low sensitivity (47%), whereas oxaliplatin, an intravenously administered CRC agent had higher sensitivity (75%) and similar specificity (97%). CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of chemotherapy and specific intravenous agents can be identified using Medicare claims, showing improvement from prior reports; yet, variation exists. Future studies should assess newly approved agents and the impact of coverage decisions for these agents under the Medicare Part D program.
Authors: Nancy N Baxter; Sara B Durham; Kelly-Anne Phillips; Elizabeth B Habermann; Beth A Virning Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Dawn Hershman; Alfred I Neugut; Judith S Jacobson; Jian Wang; Wei-Yann Tsai; Russell McBride; Charles L Bennett; Victor R Grann Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-02-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Arden M Morris; Kevin G Billingsley; Awori J Hayanga; Barbara Matthews; Laura-Mae Baldwin; John D Birkmeyer Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-05-13 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Farhood Farjah; Douglas E Wood; David Yanez; Rebecca G Symons; Bahirathan Krishnadasan; David R Flum Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Katherine D Crew; Alfred I Neugut; Xiaoyan Wang; Judith S Jacobson; Victor R Grann; George Raptis; Dawn L Hershman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lisa I Iezzoni; Long H Ngo; Donglin Li; Richard G Roetzheim; Reed E Drews; Ellen P McCarthy Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Sharon A Dobie; Joan L Warren; Barbara Matthews; David Schwartz; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Kevin Billingsley Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Nina A Bickell; Andrea N Geduld; Kathie-Ann Joseph; Joseph A Sparano; M Margaret Kemeny; Soji Oluwole; Tehillah Menes; Anitha Srinivasan; Rebeca Franco; Kezhen Fei; Howard Leventhal Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2013-09-10 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Lindsay M Morton; Graça M Dores; Sara J Schonfeld; Martha S Linet; Byron S Sigel; Clara J K Lam; Margaret A Tucker; Rochelle E Curtis Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 31.777
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: Charlie Zhong; Petra Seibold; Chun R Chao; Wendy Cozen; Joo Y Song; Dennis Weisenburger; Leslie Bernstein; Sophia S Wang Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-02-17 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Sandi L Pruitt; Hong Zhu; Daniel F Heitjan; Asal Rahimi; Bhumika Maddineni; Anna Tavakkoli; Ethan A Halm; David E Gerber; Danyi Xiong; Caitlin C Murphy Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Bruce E Hillner; Tor D Tosteson; Anna N A Tosteson; Qianfei Wang; Yunjie Song; Tracy Onega; Lucy G Hanna; Barry A Siegel Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 2.983