BACKGROUND: Evaluating and improving the quality of cancer care requires complete information on cancer stage and treatment. Hospital-based registries are a key tool in this effort, but reports in the 1990s showed that they fail to identify a major fraction of outpatient-administered treatment, including chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and radiation. This can limit their value for evaluating patterns and quality of care. To determine the completeness of registry data in more recent years, we linked administrative claims from 2 private payers in Ohio to the National Cancer Data Base and Ohio Cancer Incidence and Surveillance System. METHODS: Incident breast and colorectal cancers among Ohio residents diagnosed in 2004-2006 were identified from linkage of the National Cancer Data Base, Ohio Cancer Incidence and Surveillance System, and payer insurance claims using ICD-9 and CPT procedure codes, and ICD-9 diagnosis codes. Linkage was accomplished using patient demographics, surgery dates, and hospital facility. Treatment found in claims and registry data were compared and assessed using the κ statistic. RESULTS: The analytic cohort included 2,552 breast and 822 colorectal cases. Results showed high agreement for breast surgery type, and moderately high agreement for colorectal surgery type. For breast cases, the registries captured 87% of chemotherapy, 86% of radiation, and 64% of endocrine treatment in claims. For colorectal cases, the registry captured 83% of chemotherapy and 84% of radiation in claims. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-based registries for breast and colon cancer diagnosed in 2004-2006 captured about 85% of radiation and chemotherapy data compared with claims data, a higher percentage than earlier reports. These findings provide direction and a cautionary note to those using registry data for study of patterns and quality of systemic and radiation therapy care.
BACKGROUND: Evaluating and improving the quality of cancer care requires complete information on cancer stage and treatment. Hospital-based registries are a key tool in this effort, but reports in the 1990s showed that they fail to identify a major fraction of outpatient-administered treatment, including chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and radiation. This can limit their value for evaluating patterns and quality of care. To determine the completeness of registry data in more recent years, we linked administrative claims from 2 private payers in Ohio to the National Cancer Data Base and Ohio Cancer Incidence and Surveillance System. METHODS: Incident breast and colorectal cancers among Ohio residents diagnosed in 2004-2006 were identified from linkage of the National Cancer Data Base, Ohio Cancer Incidence and Surveillance System, and payer insurance claims using ICD-9 and CPT procedure codes, and ICD-9 diagnosis codes. Linkage was accomplished using patient demographics, surgery dates, and hospital facility. Treatment found in claims and registry data were compared and assessed using the κ statistic. RESULTS: The analytic cohort included 2,552 breast and 822 colorectal cases. Results showed high agreement for breast surgery type, and moderately high agreement for colorectal surgery type. For breast cases, the registries captured 87% of chemotherapy, 86% of radiation, and 64% of endocrine treatment in claims. For colorectal cases, the registry captured 83% of chemotherapy and 84% of radiation in claims. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-based registries for breast and colon cancer diagnosed in 2004-2006 captured about 85% of radiation and chemotherapy data compared with claims data, a higher percentage than earlier reports. These findings provide direction and a cautionary note to those using registry data for study of patterns and quality of systemic and radiation therapy care.
Authors: Kevin M Gorey; Isaac N Luginaah; Emma Bartfay; GuangYong Zou; Sundus Haji-Jama; Eric J Holowaty; Caroline Hamm; Sindu M Kanjeekal; Frances C Wright; Madhan K Balagurusamy; Nancy L Richter Journal: Health Soc Work Date: 2013-11
Authors: Jennifer K Plichta; Yi Ren; Caitlin E Marks; Samantha M Thomas; Rachel A Greenup; Laura H Rosenberger; Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Susan G R McDuff; E Shelley Hwang; Jeremy Force Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Lauren E Colbert; William A Hall; Dana Nickleach; Jeffrey Switchenko; David A Kooby; Yuan Liu; Theresa Gillespie; Joseph Lipscomb; John Kauh; Jerome C Landry Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-01-03 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Laura L Stafman; Ilan I Maizlin; Matthew Dellinger; Kenneth W Gow; Melanie Goldfarb; Jed G Nuchtern; Monica Langer; Sanjeev A Vasudevan; John J Doski; Adam B Goldin; Mehul Raval; Elizabeth A Beierle Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Evan F Garner; Ilan I Maizlin; Matthew B Dellinger; Kenneth W Gow; Melanie Goldfarb; Adam B Goldin; John J Doski; Monica Langer; Jed G Nuchtern; Sanjeev A Vasudevan; Mehul V Raval; Elizabeth A Beierle Journal: Surgery Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Chun Chieh Lin; Suanna S Bruinooge; M Kelsey Kirkwood; Dawn L Hershman; Ahmedin Jemal; B Ashleigh Guadagnolo; James B Yu; Shane Hopkins; Michael Goldstein; Dean Bajorin; Sharon H Giordano; Michael Kosty; Anna Arnone; Amy Hanley; Stephanie Stevens; Christine Olsen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Laura H Rosenberger; Yi Ren; Samantha M Thomas; Rachel A Greenup; Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; E Shelley Hwang; Jennifer K Plichta Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Laura V Bownes; Laura L Stafman; Ilan I Maizlin; Matthew Dellinger; Kenneth W Gow; Adam B Goldin; Melanie Goldfarb; Monica Langer; Mehul V Raval; John J Doski; Jed G Nuchtern; Sanjeev A Vasudevan; Elizabeth A Beierle Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2017-10-06 Impact factor: 2.192