BACKGROUND: Understanding of cancer outcomes is limited by data fragmentation. In the current study, the authors analyzed the information yielded by integrating breast cancer data from 3 sources: electronic medical records (EMRs) from 2 health care systems and the state registry. METHODS: Diagnostic test and treatment data were extracted from the EMRs of all patients with breast cancer treated between 2000 and 2010 in 2 independent California institutions: a community-based practice (Palo Alto Medical Foundation; "Community") and an academic medical center (Stanford University; "University"). The authors incorporated records from the population-based California Cancer Registry and then linked EMR-California Cancer Registry data sets of Community and University patients. RESULTS: The authors initially identified 8210 University patients and 5770 Community patients; linked data sets revealed a 16% patient overlap, yielding 12,109 unique patients. The percentage of all Community patients, but not University patients, treated at both institutions increased with worsening cancer prognostic factors. Before linking the data sets, Community patients appeared to receive less intervention than University patients (mastectomy: 37.6% vs 43.2%; chemotherapy: 35% vs 41.7%; magnetic resonance imaging: 10% vs 29.3%; and genetic testing: 2.5% vs 9.2%). Linked Community and University data sets revealed that patients treated at both institutions received substantially more interventions (mastectomy: 55.8%; chemotherapy: 47.2%; magnetic resonance imaging: 38.9%; and genetic testing: 10.9% [P < .001 for each 3-way institutional comparison]). CONCLUSIONS: Data linkage identified 16% of patients who were treated in 2 health care systems and who, despite comparable prognostic factors, received far more intensive treatment than others. By integrating complementary data from EMRs and population-based registries, a more comprehensive understanding of breast cancer care and factors that drive treatment use was obtained.
BACKGROUND: Understanding of cancer outcomes is limited by data fragmentation. In the current study, the authors analyzed the information yielded by integrating breast cancer data from 3 sources: electronic medical records (EMRs) from 2 health care systems and the state registry. METHODS: Diagnostic test and treatment data were extracted from the EMRs of all patients with breast cancer treated between 2000 and 2010 in 2 independent California institutions: a community-based practice (Palo Alto Medical Foundation; "Community") and an academic medical center (Stanford University; "University"). The authors incorporated records from the population-based California Cancer Registry and then linked EMR-California Cancer Registry data sets of Community and University patients. RESULTS: The authors initially identified 8210 University patients and 5770 Community patients; linked data sets revealed a 16% patient overlap, yielding 12,109 unique patients. The percentage of all Community patients, but not University patients, treated at both institutions increased with worsening cancer prognostic factors. Before linking the data sets, Community patients appeared to receive less intervention than University patients (mastectomy: 37.6% vs 43.2%; chemotherapy: 35% vs 41.7%; magnetic resonance imaging: 10% vs 29.3%; and genetic testing: 2.5% vs 9.2%). Linked Community and University data sets revealed that patients treated at both institutions received substantially more interventions (mastectomy: 55.8%; chemotherapy: 47.2%; magnetic resonance imaging: 38.9%; and genetic testing: 10.9% [P < .001 for each 3-way institutional comparison]). CONCLUSIONS: Data linkage identified 16% of patients who were treated in 2 health care systems and who, despite comparable prognostic factors, received far more intensive treatment than others. By integrating complementary data from EMRs and population-based registries, a more comprehensive understanding of breast cancer care and factors that drive treatment use was obtained.
Keywords:
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry; bioinformatics; breast cancer; comparative effectiveness; data linkage; electronic medical records; outcomes research
Authors: B Ashleigh Guadagnolo; Kai-Ping Liao; Linda Elting; Sharon Giordano; Thomas A Buchholz; Ya-Chen Tina Shih Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Kevin D Frick; Robert J Herbert; Amanda L Blackford; Bridget A Neville; Antonio C Wolff; Michael A Carducci; Craig C Earle Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-02-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bernard Fisher; Stewart Anderson; John Bryant; Richard G Margolese; Melvin Deutsch; Edwin R Fisher; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-10-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alan E Greenberg; Harlen Hays; Amanda D Castel; Thilakavathy Subramanian; Lindsey Powers Happ; Maria Jaurretche; Jeff Binkley; Mariah M Kalmin; Kathy Wood; Rachel Hart Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Kathryn A Martinez; Yun Li; Ken Resnicow; John J Graff; Ann S Hamilton; Sarah T Hawley Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2014-12-22 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Cathy J Bradley; Julia Entwistle; Lindsay M Sabik; Richard C Lindrooth; Marcelo Perraillon Journal: Med Care Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Emily E Hare; Meredith A Mills; Kerry E Kingham; Lisa McPherson; Alice S Whittemore; Valerie McGuire; Uri Ladabaum; Yuya Kobayashi; Stephen E Lincoln; Michele Cargill; James M Ford Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-04-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michelle Doose; Janeth I Sanchez; Joel C Cantor; Jesse J Plascak; Michael B Steinberg; Chi-Chen Hong; Kitaw Demissie; Elisa V Bandera; Jennifer Tsui Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-05
Authors: Yasmin H Karimi; Douglas W Blayney; Allison W Kurian; Jeanne Shen; Rikiya Yamashita; Daniel Rubin; Imon Banerjee Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2021-04
Authors: Christina A Clarke; Sally L Glaser; Rita Leung; Kathleen Davidson-Allen; Scarlett L Gomez; Theresa H M Keegan Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2016-12-03 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Anosheh Afghahi; Maya Mathur; Caroline A Thompson; Aya Mitani; Joseph Rigdon; Manisha Desai; Peter P Yu; Monique A de Bruin; Tina Seto; Cliff Olson; Pragati Kenkare; Scarlett L Gomez; Amar K Das; Harold S Luft; George W Sledge; Amy P Sing; Allison W Kurian Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 3.714