Joanna L Whyte1, Nicole M Engel-Nitz, April Teitelbaum, Gabriel Gomez Rey, Joel D Kallich. 1. *CSL Behring, King of Prussia, PA †OptumInsight, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Eden Prairie, MN ‡Heme Onc Associates and AHT BioPharma Advisory Services, Carlsbad, CA §Center for Observational Research, Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Administrative health care claims data are used for epidemiologic, health services, and outcomes cancer research and thus play a significant role in policy. Cancer stage, which is often a major driver of cost and clinical outcomes, is not typically included in claims data. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate algorithms used in a dataset of cancer patients to identify patients with metastatic breast (BC), lung (LC), or colorectal (CRC) cancer using claims data. METHODS: Clinical data on BC, LC, or CRC patients (between January 1, 2007 and March 31, 2010) were linked to a health care claims database. Inclusion required health plan enrollment ≥3 months before initial cancer diagnosis date. Algorithms were used in the claims database to identify patients' disease status, which was compared with physician-reported metastases. Generic and tumor-specific algorithms were evaluated using ICD-9 codes, varying diagnosis time frames, and including/excluding other tumors. Positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity were assessed. RESULTS: The linked databases included 14,480 patients; of whom, 32%, 17%, and 14.2% had metastatic BC, LC, and CRC, respectively, at diagnosis and met inclusion criteria. Nontumor-specific algorithms had lower specificity than tumor-specific algorithms. Tumor-specific algorithms' sensitivity and specificity were 53% and 99% for BC, 55% and 85% for LC, and 59% and 98% for CRC, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Algorithms to distinguish metastatic BC, LC, and CRC from locally advanced disease should use tumor-specific primary cancer codes with 2 claims for the specific primary cancer >30-42 days apart to reduce misclassification. These performed best overall in specificity, positive predictive values, and overall accuracy to identify metastatic cancer in a health care claims database.
BACKGROUND: Administrative health care claims data are used for epidemiologic, health services, and outcomes cancer research and thus play a significant role in policy. Cancer stage, which is often a major driver of cost and clinical outcomes, is not typically included in claims data. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate algorithms used in a dataset of cancerpatients to identify patients with metastatic breast (BC), lung (LC), or colorectal (CRC) cancer using claims data. METHODS: Clinical data on BC, LC, or CRC patients (between January 1, 2007 and March 31, 2010) were linked to a health care claims database. Inclusion required health plan enrollment ≥3 months before initial cancer diagnosis date. Algorithms were used in the claims database to identify patients' disease status, which was compared with physician-reported metastases. Generic and tumor-specific algorithms were evaluated using ICD-9 codes, varying diagnosis time frames, and including/excluding other tumors. Positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity were assessed. RESULTS: The linked databases included 14,480 patients; of whom, 32%, 17%, and 14.2% had metastatic BC, LC, and CRC, respectively, at diagnosis and met inclusion criteria. Nontumor-specific algorithms had lower specificity than tumor-specific algorithms. Tumor-specific algorithms' sensitivity and specificity were 53% and 99% for BC, 55% and 85% for LC, and 59% and 98% for CRC, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Algorithms to distinguish metastatic BC, LC, and CRC from locally advanced disease should use tumor-specific primary cancer codes with 2 claims for the specific primary cancer >30-42 days apart to reduce misclassification. These performed best overall in specificity, positive predictive values, and overall accuracy to identify metastatic cancer in a health care claims database.
Authors: Abiy Agiro; Xiaoxue Chen; Biruk Eshete; Rebecca Sutphen; Elizabeth Bourquardez Clark; Cristina M Burroughs; W Benjamin Nowell; Jeffrey R Curtis; Sara Loud; Robert McBurney; Peter A Merkel; Antoine G Sreih; Kalen Young; Kevin Haynes Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jacqueline M Kruser; Sunpreet S Rakhra; Ryan M Sacotte; Firas H Wehbe; Alfred W Rademaker; Richard G Wunderink; Tim J Kruser Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-06-28 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Hava Izci; Tim Tambuyzer; Krizia Tuand; Victoria Depoorter; Annouschka Laenen; Hans Wildiers; Ignace Vergote; Liesbet Van Eycken; Harlinde De Schutter; Freija Verdoodt; Patrick Neven Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Victor M Zaydfudim; Timothy L McMurry; Amy M Harrigan; Charles M Friel; George J Stukenborg; Todd W Bauer; Reid B Adams; Traci L Hedrick Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Ronac Mamtani; Kevin Haynes; Ben Boursi; Frank I Scott; David S Goldberg; Stephen M Keefe; David J Vaughn; S Bruce Malkowicz; James D Lewis Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-11-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Debra P Ritzwoller; Michael J Hassett; Hajime Uno; Angel M Cronin; Nikki M Carroll; Mark C Hornbrook; Lawrence C Kushi Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Mustafa S Ascha; Quinn T Ostrom; James Wright; Priya Kumthekar; Jeremy S Bordeaux; Andrew E Sloan; Fredrick R Schumacher; Carol Kruchko; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: J M Escribà; M Banqué; F Macià; J Gálvez; L Esteban; L Pareja; R Clèries; X Sanz; X Castells; J M Borrás; J Ribes Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-10-04 Impact factor: 3.405