Literature DB >> 22922433

Distinguishing screening from diagnostic mammograms using Medicare claims data.

Joshua J Fenton1, Weiwei Zhu, Steven Balch, Rebecca Smith-Bindman, Paul Fishman, Rebecca A Hubbard.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Medicare claims data may be a fruitful data source for research or quality measurement in mammography. However, it is uncertain whether claims data can accurately distinguish screening from diagnostic mammograms, particularly when claims are not linked with cancer registry data.
OBJECTIVES: To validate claims-based algorithms that can identify screening mammograms with high positive predictive value (PPV) in claims data with and without cancer registry linkage. RESEARCH
DESIGN: Development of claims-derived algorithms using classification and regression tree analyses within a random half-sample of bilateral mammogram claims with validation in the remaining half-sample.
SUBJECTS: Female fee-for-service Medicare enrollees aged 66 years and older, who underwent bilateral mammography from 1999 to 2005 within Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries in 4 states (CA, NC, NH, and VT), enabling linkage of claims and BCSC mammography data (N=383,730 mammograms obtained from 146,346 women). MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, and PPV of algorithmic designation of a "screening" purpose of the mammogram using a BCSC-derived reference standard.
RESULTS: In claims data without cancer registry linkage, a 3-step claims-derived algorithm identified screening mammograms with 97.1% sensitivity, 69.4% specificity, and a PPV of 94.9%. In claims that are linked to cancer registry data, a similar 3-step algorithm had higher sensitivity (99.7%), similar specificity (62.7%), and higher PPV (97.4%).
CONCLUSIONS: Simple algorithms can identify Medicare claims for screening mammography with high predictive values in Medicare claims alone and in claims linked with cancer registry data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 22922433      PMCID: PMC3534834          DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318269e0f5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  16 in total

Review 1.  Classification and regression tree analysis in public health: methodological review and comparison with logistic regression.

Authors:  Stephenie C Lemon; Jason Roy; Melissa A Clark; Peter D Friedmann; William Rakowski
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2003-12

2.  Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population.

Authors:  Joan L Warren; Carrie N Klabunde; Deborah Schrag; Peter B Bach; Gerald F Riley
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Primary care physicians who treat blacks and whites.

Authors:  Peter B Bach; Hoangmai H Pham; Deborah Schrag; Ramsey C Tate; J Lee Hargraves
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-08-05       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases.

Authors:  R A Deyo; D C Cherkin; M A Ciol
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Performance benchmarks for screening mammography.

Authors:  Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Linn A Abraham; Edward A Sickles; Constance D Lehman; Berta M Geller; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Donald L Weaver; William E Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests.

Authors:  D F Ransohoff; A R Feinstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1978-10-26       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Regular mammography use is associated with elimination of age-related disparities in size and stage of breast cancer at diagnosis.

Authors:  Whitney M Randolph; James S Goodwin; Jonathan D Mahnken; Jean L Freeman
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-11-19       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Medicare coverage, supplemental insurance, and the use of mammography by older women.

Authors:  J Blustein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1995-04-27       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 9.  Cancer screening in the United States, 2008: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and cancer screening issues.

Authors:  Robert A Smith; Vilma Cokkinides; Otis Webb Brawley
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2008-04-28       Impact factor: 508.702

10.  Using Medicare data to estimate the prevalence of breast cancer screening in older women: comparison of different methods to identify screening mammograms.

Authors:  Whitney M Randolph; Jonathan D Mahnken; James S Goodwin; Jean L Freeman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.402

View more
  31 in total

1.  Association between persistence with mammography screening and stage at diagnosis among elderly women diagnosed with breast cancer.

Authors:  Ami Vyas; Suresh Madhavan; Usha Sambamoorthi
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2014-11-16       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Influence of Age, Health, and Function on Cancer Screening in Older Adults with Limited Life Expectancy.

Authors:  Nancy L Schoenborn; Jin Huang; Orla C Sheehan; Jennifer L Wolff; David L Roth; Cynthia M Boyd
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Downstream Breast Imaging Following Screening Mammography in Medicare Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Population-Based Study.

Authors:  Gelareh Sadigh; Richard Duszak; Kevin C Ward; Renjian Jiang; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Kimberly E Applegate; Ruth C Carlos
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2017-11-14       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Cancer preventive services, socioeconomic status, and the Affordable Care Act.

Authors:  Gregory S Cooper; Tzuyung Doug Kou; Avi Dor; Siran M Koroukian; Mark D Schluchter
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Association of State Dense Breast Notification Laws With Supplemental Testing and Cancer Detection After Screening Mammography.

Authors:  Susan H Busch; Jessica R Hoag; Jenerius A Aminawung; Xiao Xu; Ilana B Richman; Pamela R Soulos; Kelly A Kyanko; Cary P Gross
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2019-03-21       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Identification of abnormal screening mammogram interpretation using Medicare claims data.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Weiwei Zhu; Steven Balch; Tracy Onega; Joshua J Fenton
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-06-28       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  A joint model for multistate disease processes and random informative observation times, with applications to electronic medical records data.

Authors:  Jane M Lange; Rebecca A Hubbard; Lurdes Y T Inoue; Vladimir N Minin
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Challenges With Identifying Indication for Examination in Breast Imaging as a Key Clinical Attribute in Practice, Research, and Policy.

Authors:  Julie E Weiss; Martha Goodrich; Kimberly A Harris; Rachael E Chicoine; Marie B Synnestvedt; Steve J Pyle; Jane S Chen; Sally D Herschorn; Elisabeth F Beaber; Jennifer S Haas; Anna N A Tosteson; Tracy Onega
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 5.532

9.  Computer-aided detection in mammography: downstream effect on diagnostic testing, ductal carcinoma in situ treatment, and costs.

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Christoph I Lee; Guibo Xing; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 21.873

10.  Short-term outcomes of screening mammography using computer-aided detection: a population-based study of medicare enrollees.

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Guibo Xing; Joann G Elmore; Heejung Bang; Steven L Chen; Karen K Lindfors; Laura-Mae Baldwin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 25.391

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.