Amy J Davidoff1, Lisa D Gardner, Ilene H Zuckerman, Franklin Hendrick, Xuehua Ke, Martin J Edelman. 1. *Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD †Epidemiology and Public Health, School of Medicine ‡IMPAQ International, LLC, Columbia, MD §Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD ∥School of Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In prior research, we developed a claims-based prediction model for poor patient disability status (DS), a proxy measure for performance status, commonly used by oncologists to summarize patient functional status and assess ability of a patient to tolerate aggressive treatment. In this study, we implemented and validated the DS measure in 4 cohorts of cancer patients: early and advanced non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC), stage IV estrogen receptor-negative (ER-) breast cancer, and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). DATA AND METHODS: SEER-Medicare data (1999-2007) for the 4 cohorts of cancer patients. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression tested the association of the DS measure with designated cancer-directed treatments: early NSCLC (surgery), advanced NSCLC (chemotherapy), stage IV ER- breast cancer (chemotherapy), and MDS (erythropoiesis-stimulating agents). Treatment model fit was compared across model iterations. RESULTS: In both unadjusted and adjusted results, predicted poor DS was strongly associated with a lower likelihood of cancer treatment receipt in all 4 cohorts [early NSCLC (N=20,280), advanced NSCLC (N=31,341), stage IV ER- breast cancer (N=1519), and MDS (N=6058)] independent of other patient, contextual, and disease characteristics, as well as the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Inclusion of the DS measure into models already controlling for other variables did not significantly improve model fit across the cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The DS measure is a significant independent predictor of cancer-directed treatment. Small changes in model fit associated with both DS and the Charlson Comorbidity Index suggest that unobserved factors continue to play a role in determining cancer treatments.
BACKGROUND: In prior research, we developed a claims-based prediction model for poor patientdisability status (DS), a proxy measure for performance status, commonly used by oncologists to summarize patient functional status and assess ability of a patient to tolerate aggressive treatment. In this study, we implemented and validated the DS measure in 4 cohorts of cancerpatients: early and advanced non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC), stage IV estrogen receptor-negative (ER-) breast cancer, and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). DATA AND METHODS: SEER-Medicare data (1999-2007) for the 4 cohorts of cancerpatients. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression tested the association of the DS measure with designated cancer-directed treatments: early NSCLC (surgery), advanced NSCLC (chemotherapy), stage IV ER- breast cancer (chemotherapy), and MDS (erythropoiesis-stimulating agents). Treatment model fit was compared across model iterations. RESULTS: In both unadjusted and adjusted results, predicted poor DS was strongly associated with a lower likelihood of cancer treatment receipt in all 4 cohorts [early NSCLC (N=20,280), advanced NSCLC (N=31,341), stage IV ER- breast cancer (N=1519), and MDS (N=6058)] independent of other patient, contextual, and disease characteristics, as well as the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Inclusion of the DS measure into models already controlling for other variables did not significantly improve model fit across the cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The DS measure is a significant independent predictor of cancer-directed treatment. Small changes in model fit associated with both DS and the Charlson Comorbidity Index suggest that unobserved factors continue to play a role in determining cancer treatments.
Authors: Amy J Davidoff; Ilene H Zuckerman; Naimish Pandya; Franklin Hendrick; Xuehua Ke; Arti Hurria; Stuart M Lichtman; Arif Hussain; Jonathan P Weiner; Martin J Edelman Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Myra Schneider; Ilene H Zuckerman; Eberechukwu Onukwugha; Naimish Pandya; Brian Seal; Jim Gardner; C Daniel Mullins Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; Nancy R Cook; Thomas Gerds; Mithat Gonen; Nancy Obuchowski; Michael J Pencina; Michael W Kattan Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Brenda K Edwards; Anne-Michelle Noone; Angela B Mariotto; Edgar P Simard; Francis P Boscoe; S Jane Henley; Ahmedin Jemal; Hyunsoon Cho; Robert N Anderson; Betsy A Kohler; Christie R Eheman; Elizabeth M Ward Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-12-16 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Amer M Zeidan; Franklin Hendrick; Erika Friedmann; Maria R Baer; Steven D Gore; Medha Sasane; Carole Paley; Amy J Davidoff Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 1.744
Authors: Carmen C Cuthbertson; Anna Kucharska-Newton; Keturah R Faurot; Til Stürmer; Michele Jonsson Funk; Priya Palta; B Gwen Windham; Sydney Thai; Jennifer L Lund Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Amy J Davidoff; Xin Hu; Jan Philipp Bewersdorf; Rong Wang; Nikolai A Podoltsev; Scott F Huntington; Steven D Gore; Xiaomei Ma; Amer M Zeidan Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2019-12-26
Authors: Amer M Zeidan; Xin Hu; Weiwei Zhu; Maximilian Stahl; Rong Wang; Scott F Huntington; Smith Giri; Jan Philipp Bewersdorf; Nikolai A Podoltsev; Steven D Gore; Xiaomei Ma; Amy J Davidoff Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2019-10-01
Authors: Amer M Zeidan; Rong Wang; Amy J Davidoff; Shuangge Ma; Yinjun Zhao; Steven D Gore; Cary P Gross; Xiaomei Ma Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-03-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: C Tyler Ellis; Ashley L Cole; Hanna K Sanoff; Sharon Hinton; Stacie B Dusetzina; Karyn B Stitzenberg Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 6.113