Steven T Fleming1, Ann S Hamilton, Susan A Sabatino, Gretchen G Kimmick, Xiao-Cheng Wu, Jean B Owen, Bin Huang, Wenke Hwang. 1. *Department of Epidemiology, University of Kentucky College of Public Health, Lexington, KY †Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA ‡Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA §Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC ∥Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA ¶American College of Radiology Clinical Research Center, Philadelphia, PA #University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center, Lexington, KY **Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As evidence-based guidelines increasingly define standards of care, the accurate reporting of patterns of treatment becomes critical to determine if appropriate care has been provided. We explore the level of agreement between claims and record abstraction for treatment regimens for prostate cancer. METHODS: Medicare claims data were linked to medical records abstraction using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Program of Cancer Registry-funded Breast and Prostate Patterns of Care study. The first course of therapy included surgery, radiation therapy (RT), and hormonal therapy with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists. RESULTS: The linked sample included 2765 men most (84.7%) of whom had stage II prostate cancer. Agreement was excellent for surgery (κ=0.92) and RT (κ=0.92) and lower for hormonal therapy (κ=0.71); however, most of the discrepancies were due to greater number of patients reported who received hormonal therapy in the claims database than in the medical records database. For some standard multicomponent management strategies sensitivities were high, for example, hormonal therapy with either combination RT (86.9%) or cryosurgery (96.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Medicare claims are sensitive for determining patterns of multicomponent care for prostate cancer and for detecting use of hormonal therapy when not reported in the medical records abstracts.
BACKGROUND: As evidence-based guidelines increasingly define standards of care, the accurate reporting of patterns of treatment becomes critical to determine if appropriate care has been provided. We explore the level of agreement between claims and record abstraction for treatment regimens for prostate cancer. METHODS: Medicare claims data were linked to medical records abstraction using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Program of Cancer Registry-funded Breast and Prostate Patterns of Care study. The first course of therapy included surgery, radiation therapy (RT), and hormonal therapy with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists. RESULTS: The linked sample included 2765 men most (84.7%) of whom had stage II prostate cancer. Agreement was excellent for surgery (κ=0.92) and RT (κ=0.92) and lower for hormonal therapy (κ=0.71); however, most of the discrepancies were due to greater number of patients reported who received hormonal therapy in the claims database than in the medical records database. For some standard multicomponent management strategies sensitivities were high, for example, hormonal therapy with either combination RT (86.9%) or cryosurgery (96.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Medicare claims are sensitive for determining patterns of multicomponent care for prostate cancer and for detecting use of hormonal therapy when not reported in the medical records abstracts.
Authors: Jennifer L Malin; Katherine L Kahn; John Adams; Lorna Kwan; Marianne Laouri; Patricia A Ganz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-06-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Joan L Warren; Linda C Harlan; Angela Fahey; Beth A Virnig; Jean L Freeman; Carrie N Klabunde; Gregory S Cooper; Kevin B Knopf Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Timothy J Wilt; Roderick MacDonald; Indulis Rutks; Tatyana A Shamliyan; Brent C Taylor; Robert L Kane Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-02-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Ann S Hamilton; Steven T Fleming; Dian Wang; Michael Goodman; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Jean B Owen; Mary Lo; Alex Ho; Roger T Anderson; Trevor Thompson Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Vivien W Chen; Christie R Eheman; Christopher J Johnson; Monique N Hernandez; David Rousseau; Timothy S Styles; Dee W West; Meichin Hsieh; Anne M Hakenewerth; Maria O Celaya; Randi K Rycroft; Jennifer M Wike; Melissa Pearson; Judy Brockhouse; Linda G Mulvihill; Kevin B Zhang Journal: J Registry Manag Date: 2014
Authors: Raj Satkunasivam; Andre E Kim; Mihir Desai; Mike M Nguyen; David I Quinn; Leslie Ballas; Juan Pablo Lewinger; Mariana C Stern; Ann S Hamilton; Monish Aron; Inderbir S Gill Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Carol P Roth; Ian D Coulter; Lisa S Kraus; Gery W Ryan; Gary Jacob; Joyce S Marks; Eric L Hurwitz; Howard Vernon; Paul G Shekelle; Patricia M Herman Journal: J Manipulative Physiol Ther Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Saira Khan; Sanah Vohra; Laura Farnan; Shekinah N C Elmore; Khadijah Toumbou; Madhav K C; Elizabeth T H Fontham; Edward S Peters; James L Mohler; Jeannette T Bensen Journal: Prostate Date: 2022-07-26 Impact factor: 4.012