PURPOSE: To evaluate, in the setting of breast cancer, the accuracy of registry radiation therapy (RT) coding compared with the gold standard of Medicare claims. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, we identified 73,077 patients aged ≥66 years diagnosed with breast cancer in the period 2001-2007. Underascertainment (1 - sensitivity), sensitivity, specificity, κ, and χ(2) were calculated for RT receipt determined by registry data versus claims. Multivariate logistic regression characterized patient, treatment, and geographic factors associated with underascertainment of RT. Findings in the SEER-Medicare registries were compared with three non-SEER registries (Florida, New York, and Texas). RESULTS: In the SEER-Medicare registries, 41.6% (n=30,386) of patients received RT according to registry coding, versus 49.3% (n=36,047) according to Medicare claims (P<.001). Underascertainment of RT was more likely if patients resided in a newer SEER registry (odds ratio [OR] 1.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.60-1.80; P<.001), rural county (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.21-1.48; P<.001), or if RT was delayed (OR 1.006/day, 95% CI 1.006-1.007; P<.001). Underascertainment of RT receipt in SEER registries was 18.7% (95% CI 18.6-18.8%), compared with 44.3% (95% CI 44.0-44.5%) in non-SEER registries. CONCLUSIONS: Population-based tumor registries are highly variable in ascertainment of RT receipt and should be augmented with other data sources when evaluating quality of breast cancer care. Future work should identify opportunities for the radiation oncology community to partner with registries to improve accuracy of treatment data.
PURPOSE: To evaluate, in the setting of breast cancer, the accuracy of registry radiation therapy (RT) coding compared with the gold standard of Medicare claims. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, we identified 73,077 patients aged ≥66 years diagnosed with breast cancer in the period 2001-2007. Underascertainment (1 - sensitivity), sensitivity, specificity, κ, and χ(2) were calculated for RT receipt determined by registry data versus claims. Multivariate logistic regression characterized patient, treatment, and geographic factors associated with underascertainment of RT. Findings in the SEER-Medicare registries were compared with three non-SEER registries (Florida, New York, and Texas). RESULTS: In the SEER-Medicare registries, 41.6% (n=30,386) of patients received RT according to registry coding, versus 49.3% (n=36,047) according to Medicare claims (P<.001). Underascertainment of RT was more likely if patients resided in a newer SEER registry (odds ratio [OR] 1.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.60-1.80; P<.001), rural county (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.21-1.48; P<.001), or if RT was delayed (OR 1.006/day, 95% CI 1.006-1.007; P<.001). Underascertainment of RT receipt in SEER registries was 18.7% (95% CI 18.6-18.8%), compared with 44.3% (95% CI 44.0-44.5%) in non-SEER registries. CONCLUSIONS: Population-based tumor registries are highly variable in ascertainment of RT receipt and should be augmented with other data sources when evaluating quality of breast cancer care. Future work should identify opportunities for the radiation oncology community to partner with registries to improve accuracy of treatment data.
Authors: Jatinder R Palta; Jason A Efstathiou; Justin E Bekelman; Sasa Mutic; Carl R Bogardus; Todd R McNutt; Peter E Gabriel; Colleen A Lawton; Anthony L Zietman; Christopher M Rose Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2011-07-14
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Paul Abrahamse; Sarah T Hawley; John J Graff; Ann S Hamilton; Steven J Katz Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Nina A Bickell; Andrea N Geduld; Kathie-Ann Joseph; Joseph A Sparano; M Margaret Kemeny; Soji Oluwole; Tehillah Menes; Anitha Srinivasan; Rebeca Franco; Kezhen Fei; Howard Leventhal Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2013-09-10 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Thomas Churilla; Brian Egleston; Yanqun Dong; Talha Shaikh; Colin Murphy; Gina Mantia-Smaldone; Christina Chu; Stephen Rubin; Penny Anderson Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-03-25 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Mathias Worni; Igor Akushevich; Rachel Greenup; Deba Sarma; Marc D Ryser; Evan R Myers; E Shelley Hwang Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-09-30 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Deirdre A Hill; Sarah Friend; Lesley Lomo; Charles Wiggins; Marc Barry; Eric Prossnitz; Melanie Royce Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Chelsea Anderson; Christopher D Baggett; Chandrika Rao; Lisa Moy; Lawrence H Kushi; Chun R Chao; Hazel B Nichols Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 2.984
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: Shervin M Shirvani; Jing Jiang; Anna Likhacheva; Karen E Hoffman; Simona F Shaitelman; Abigail Caudle; Thomas A Buchholz; Sharon H Giordano; Benjamin D Smith Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-02-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Siddhartha Yadav; Dhauna Karam; Irbaz Bin Riaz; Hao Xie; Urshila Durani; Narjust Duma; Karthik V Giridhar; Tina J Hieken; Judy C Boughey; Robert W Mutter; John R Hawse; Rafael E Jimenez; Fergus J Couch; Roberto A Leon-Ferre; Kathryn J Ruddy Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-10-07 Impact factor: 6.860