BACKGROUND: The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR) ascertained changes in the intended management of cancer patients using questionnaire data obtained before and after positron emission tomography (PET) under Medicare's coverage with evidence development policy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the concordance between intended care plans and care received as ascertained through administrative claims data. RESEARCH DESIGN: Analysis of linked data of NOPR participants from 2006 to 2008 and their corresponding Medicare claims. SUBJECTS: Consenting patients aged older than 65 years having their first PET for restaging of bladder, kidney, ovarian, pancreas, prostate, small cell lung, or stomach cancer. MEASURES: : Agreement (positive predictive values and κ) between NOPR post-PET intended management plans for treatment (systemic therapy, radiotherapy, surgery, or combinations), biopsy, or watching as compared to claims-inferred care 30 days after PET. RESULTS: A total of 8460 patients with linked data were assessed. A total of 43.5% had metastatic disease and 45.3% had treatment planned (predominantly systemic therapy only), 11.1% biopsy and 43.5% watching. Claims-confirmed intended plans (positive predictive value) for single-mode systemic therapy in 62.0%, radiation in 66.0%, surgery in 45.6%, and biopsy in 55.7%. A total of 25.7% of patients with a plan of watching had treatment claims. By cancer type, κ ranged for systemic therapy only from 0.17 to 0.40 and for watching from 0.21 to 0.41. Agreement rates varied by cancer types but were minimally associated with patient age, performance status, comorbidity, or stage. CONCLUSIONS: Among elderly cancer patients undergoing PET for restaging, there was moderate concordance between their physicians' planned management and claims-inferred actions within a narrow time window. When higher accuracy levels are required in future coverage with evidence development studies, alternative designs will be needed.
BACKGROUND: The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR) ascertained changes in the intended management of cancerpatients using questionnaire data obtained before and after positron emission tomography (PET) under Medicare's coverage with evidence development policy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the concordance between intended care plans and care received as ascertained through administrative claims data. RESEARCH DESIGN: Analysis of linked data of NOPR participants from 2006 to 2008 and their corresponding Medicare claims. SUBJECTS: Consenting patients aged older than 65 years having their first PET for restaging of bladder, kidney, ovarian, pancreas, prostate, small cell lung, or stomach cancer. MEASURES: : Agreement (positive predictive values and κ) between NOPR post-PET intended management plans for treatment (systemic therapy, radiotherapy, surgery, or combinations), biopsy, or watching as compared to claims-inferred care 30 days after PET. RESULTS: A total of 8460 patients with linked data were assessed. A total of 43.5% had metastatic disease and 45.3% had treatment planned (predominantly systemic therapy only), 11.1% biopsy and 43.5% watching. Claims-confirmed intended plans (positive predictive value) for single-mode systemic therapy in 62.0%, radiation in 66.0%, surgery in 45.6%, and biopsy in 55.7%. A total of 25.7% of patients with a plan of watching had treatment claims. By cancer type, κ ranged for systemic therapy only from 0.17 to 0.40 and for watching from 0.21 to 0.41. Agreement rates varied by cancer types but were minimally associated with patient age, performance status, comorbidity, or stage. CONCLUSIONS: Among elderly cancerpatients undergoing PET for restaging, there was moderate concordance between their physicians' planned management and claims-inferred actions within a narrow time window. When higher accuracy levels are required in future coverage with evidence development studies, alternative designs will be needed.
Authors: Matthew J Lindsay; Barry A Siegel; Sean R Tunis; Bruce E Hillner; Anthony F Shields; Brian P Carey; R Edward Coleman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Elizabeth B Lamont; James E Herndon; Jane C Weeks; I Craig Henderson; Rogerio Lilenbaum; Richard L Schilsky; Nicholas A Christakis Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-07-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Carrie N Klabunde; Julie M Legler; Joan L Warren; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Deborah Schrag Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2007-05-25 Impact factor: 3.797
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: Beth A Virnig; Joan L Warren; Gregory S Cooper; Carrie N Klabunde; Nicola Schussler; Jean Freeman Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jeremie Calais; Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Jeannine Gartmann; Fang-I Chu; Nicholas G Nickols; Robert E Reiter; Matthew B Rettig; Leonard S Marks; Thomas E Ahlering; Linda M Huynh; Roger Slavik; Pawan Gupta; Andrew Quon; Martin S Allen-Auerbach; Johannes Czernin; Ken Herrmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Bruce E Hillner; Lucy Hanna; Rajesh Makineni; Fenghai Duan; Anthony F Shields; Rathan M Subramaniam; Ilana Gareen; Barry A Siegel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Tracy Onega; Rebecca Hubbard; Deirdre Hill; Christoph I Lee; Jennifer S Haas; Heather A Carlos; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Andy Bogart; Wendy B DeMartini; Karla Kerlikowske; Beth A Virnig; Diana S M Buist; Louise Henderson; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Bruce E Hillner; Anna N Tosteson; Tor D Tosteson; Qianfei Wang; Yunjie Song; Lucy G Hanna; Barry A Siegel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 10.057