BACKGROUND: Studies of breast cancer outcomes rely on the identification of second breast cancer events (recurrences and second breast primary tumors). Cancer registries often do not capture recurrences, and chart abstraction can be infeasible or expensive. An alternative is using administrative health-care data to identify second breast cancer events; however, these algorithms must be validated against a gold standard. METHODS: We developed algorithms using data from 3152 women in an integrated health-care system who were diagnosed with stage I or II breast cancer in 1993-2006. Medical record review served as the gold standard for second breast cancer events. Administrative data used in algorithm development included procedures, diagnoses, prescription fills, and cancer registry records. We randomly divided the cohort into training and testing samples and used a classification and regression tree analysis to build algorithms for classifying women as having or not having a second breast cancer event. We created several algorithms for researchers to use based on the relative importance of sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) in future studies. RESULTS: The algorithm with high specificity and PPV had 89% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI] = 84% to 92%), 99% specificity (95% CI = 98% to 99%), and 90% PPV (95% CI = 86% to 94%); the high-sensitivity algorithm had 96% sensitivity (95% CI = 93% to 98%), 95% specificity (95% CI = 94% to 96%), and 74% PPV (95% CI = 68% to 78%). CONCLUSIONS: Algorithms based on administrative data can identify second breast cancer events with high sensitivity, specificity, and PPV. The algorithms presented here promote efficient outcomes research, allowing researchers to prioritize sensitivity, specificity, or PPV in identifying second breast cancer events.
BACKGROUND: Studies of breast cancer outcomes rely on the identification of second breast cancer events (recurrences and second breast primary tumors). Cancer registries often do not capture recurrences, and chart abstraction can be infeasible or expensive. An alternative is using administrative health-care data to identify second breast cancer events; however, these algorithms must be validated against a gold standard. METHODS: We developed algorithms using data from 3152 women in an integrated health-care system who were diagnosed with stage I or II breast cancer in 1993-2006. Medical record review served as the gold standard for second breast cancer events. Administrative data used in algorithm development included procedures, diagnoses, prescription fills, and cancer registry records. We randomly divided the cohort into training and testing samples and used a classification and regression tree analysis to build algorithms for classifying women as having or not having a second breast cancer event. We created several algorithms for researchers to use based on the relative importance of sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) in future studies. RESULTS: The algorithm with high specificity and PPV had 89% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI] = 84% to 92%), 99% specificity (95% CI = 98% to 99%), and 90% PPV (95% CI = 86% to 94%); the high-sensitivity algorithm had 96% sensitivity (95% CI = 93% to 98%), 95% specificity (95% CI = 94% to 96%), and 74% PPV (95% CI = 68% to 78%). CONCLUSIONS: Algorithms based on administrative data can identify second breast cancer events with high sensitivity, specificity, and PPV. The algorithms presented here promote efficient outcomes research, allowing researchers to prioritize sensitivity, specificity, or PPV in identifying second breast cancer events.
Authors: Thomas P Ahern; Lars Pedersen; Maja Tarp; Deirdre P Cronin-Fenton; Jens Peter Garne; Rebecca A Silliman; Henrik Toft Sørensen; Timothy L Lash Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-08-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ann M Geiger; Soe Soe Thwin; Timothy L Lash; Diana S M Buist; Marianne N Prout; Feifei Wei; Terry S Field; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Floyd J Frost; Shelley M Enger; Rebecca A Silliman Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Benjamin D Smith; Bruce G Haffty; Thomas A Buchholz; Grace L Smith; Deron H Galusha; Justin E Bekelman; Cary P Gross Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-09-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: E Janschek; D Kandioler-Eckersberger; C Ludwig; S Kappel; B Wolf; S Taucher; M Rudas; M Gnant; R Jakesz Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Michael E Stokes; David Thompson; Eduardo L Montoya; Milton C Weinstein; Eric P Winer; Craig C Earle Journal: Value Health Date: 2008 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Tomasz P Srokowski; Shenying Fang; Zhigang Duan; Thomas A Buchholz; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; James S Goodwin; Sharon H Giordano Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Craig C Earle; Ann B Nattinger; Arnold L Potosky; Kathleen Lang; Rajiv Mallick; Mark Berger; Joan L Warren Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jessica Chubak; Denise M Boudreau; Heidi S Wirtz; Barbara McKnight; Noel S Weiss Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-08-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Zexian Zeng; Xiaoyu Li; Sasa Espino; Ankita Roy; Kristen Kitsch; Susan Clare; Seema Khan; Yuan Luo Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-04-16
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: Michael J Hassett; Hajime Uno; Angel M Cronin; Nikki M Carroll; Mark C Hornbrook; Debra Ritzwoller Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Frank I Scott; Ronac Mamtani; Colleen M Brensinger; Kevin Haynes; Zelma C Chiesa-Fuxench; Jie Zhang; Lang Chen; Fenglong Xie; Huifeng Yun; Mark T Osterman; Timothy Beukelman; David J Margolis; Jeffrey R Curtis; James D Lewis Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Lu Chen; Jessica Chubak; Denise M Boudreau; William E Barlow; Noel S Weiss; Christopher I Li Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Michael J Hassett; Debra P Ritzwoller; Nathan Taback; Nikki Carroll; Angel M Cronin; Gladys V Ting; Deb Schrag; Joan L Warren; Mark C Hornbrook; Jane C Weeks Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 2.983