Literature DB >> 25161127

Preliminary Development and Evaluation of an Algorithm to Identify Breast Cancer Chemotherapy Toxicities Using Electronic Medical Records and Administrative Data.

Jeanne S Mandelblatt1, Karl Huang2, Solomon B Makgoeng2, Gheorghe Luta2, Jun X Song2, Michelle Tallarico2, Janise M Roh2, Julie R Munneke2, Cathie A Houlston2, Meghan E McGuckin2, Ling Cai2, Grace Clarke Hillyer2, Dawn L Hershman2, Alfred I Neugut2, Claudine Isaacs2, Larry Kushi2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Breast cancer chemotherapy toxicity is not well documented outside of randomized trials. We developed and conducted preliminary evaluation of an algorithm to detect grade 3 and 4 toxicities using electronic data from a large integrated managed care organization.
METHODS: The algorithm used administrative, pharmacy, and electronic data from outpatient, emergency room, and inpatient records of 99 women diagnosed with breast cancer from 2006 to 2009 who underwent chemotherapy. Data were abstracted for 12 months post-treatment initiation (24 months for trastuzumab recipients). An oncology nurse independently blindly reviewed records; these results were the "gold standard." Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for overall toxicity, categories of toxicities, and toxicity by age or regimen. The algorithm was applied to an independent sample of 1,575 patients with breast cancer diagnosed during the study period to estimate prevalence rates.
RESULTS: The overall sensitivity for detecting chemotherapy-related toxicity was 89% (95% CI, 77% to 95%). The highest sensitivity was for identification of hematologic toxicities (97%; 95% CI, 84% to 99%). There were good sensitivities for infectious toxicity, but rates dropped for GI and neurological toxicities. Specificity was high within each category (89% to 99%), but when combined to measure any toxicity, it was lower (70%; 95% CI, 57% to 81%). When applied to an independent chemotherapy sample, the algorithm estimates a 26% rate of hematologic toxicity; rates were higher among patients age ≥ 65 years versus less than 65 years.
CONCLUSIONS: If validated in other samples and health care settings, algorithms to capture toxicity could be useful in comparative and cost-effectiveness evaluations of community practice-delivered treatment.
Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25161127      PMCID: PMC4295421          DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2013.001288

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oncol Pract        ISSN: 1554-7477            Impact factor:   3.840


  37 in total

1.  Predicting chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer: a prospective multicenter study.

Authors:  Arti Hurria; Kayo Togawa; Supriya G Mohile; Cynthia Owusu; Heidi D Klepin; Cary P Gross; Stuart M Lichtman; Ajeet Gajra; Smita Bhatia; Vani Katheria; Shira Klapper; Kurt Hansen; Rupal Ramani; Mark Lachs; F Lennie Wong; William P Tew
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-08-01       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Paying for personalized care: cancer biomarkers and comparative effectiveness.

Authors:  Rahber Thariani; David L Veenstra; Josh J Carlson; Louis P Garrison; Scott Ramsey
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2012-03-06       Impact factor: 6.603

3.  Frequency and cost of chemotherapy-related serious adverse effects in a population sample of women with breast cancer.

Authors:  Michael J Hassett; A James O'Malley; Juliana R Pakes; Joseph P Newhouse; Craig C Earle
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-08-16       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Economic evaluation of genomic test-directed chemotherapy for early-stage lymph node-positive breast cancer.

Authors:  Peter S Hall; Christopher McCabe; Robert C Stein; David Cameron
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-12-02       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Cognitive interviewing of the US National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

Authors:  Jennifer L Hay; Thomas M Atkinson; Bryce B Reeve; Sandra A Mitchell; Tito R Mendoza; Gordon Willis; Lori M Minasian; Steven B Clauser; Andrea Denicoff; Ann O'Mara; Alice Chen; Antonia V Bennett; Diane B Paul; Joshua Gagne; Lauren Rogak; Laura Sit; Vish Viswanath; Deborah Schrag; Ethan Basch
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-07-20       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  The Pathways Study: a prospective study of breast cancer survivorship within Kaiser Permanente Northern California.

Authors:  Marilyn L Kwan; Christine B Ambrosone; Marion M Lee; Janice Barlow; Sarah E Krathwohl; Isaac Joshua Ergas; Christine H Ashley; Julie R Bittner; Jeanne Darbinian; Keren Stronach; Bette J Caan; Warren Davis; Susan E Kutner; Charles P Quesenberry; Carol P Somkin; Barbara Sternfeld; John K Wiencke; Shichun Zheng; Lawrence H Kushi
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 2.506

7.  Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities.

Authors:  Vivek H Murthy; Harlan M Krumholz; Cary P Gross
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-06-09       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Inappropriate medication use as a risk factor for self-reported adverse drug effects in older adults.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Rachel VanGilder; Kara Wright; Michael Kelly; Robert B Wallace
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 5.562

9.  Adverse events among the elderly receiving chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Jane F Pendergast; Katherine L Kahn; Robert B Wallace; Daniela C Moga; David P Harrington; Catarina I Kiefe; Jane C Weeks; Dee W West; S Yousuf Zafar; Robert H Fletcher
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-12-28       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Patterns and predictors of breast cancer chemotherapy use in Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 2004-2007.

Authors:  Allison W Kurian; Daphne Y Lichtensztajn; Theresa H M Keegan; Rita W Leung; Sarah J Shema; Dawn L Hershman; Lawrence H Kushi; Laurel A Habel; Tatjana Kolevska; Bette J Caan; Scarlett L Gomez
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2012-11-09       Impact factor: 4.624

View more
  5 in total

1.  Using electronic medical record data to report laboratory adverse events.

Authors:  Tamara P Miller; Yimei Li; Kelly D Getz; Jesse Dudley; Evanette Burrows; Jeffrey Pennington; Azada Ibrahimova; Brian T Fisher; Rochelle Bagatell; Alix E Seif; Robert Grundmeier; Richard Aplenc
Journal:  Br J Haematol       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 6.998

2.  Accuracy of Adverse Event Ascertainment in Clinical Trials for Pediatric Acute Myeloid Leukemia.

Authors:  Tamara P Miller; Yimei Li; Marko Kavcic; Andrea B Troxel; Yuan-Shun V Huang; Lillian Sung; Todd A Alonzo; Robert Gerbing; Matt Hall; Marla H Daves; Terzah M Horton; Michael A Pulsipher; Jessica A Pollard; Rochelle Bagatell; Alix E Seif; Brian T Fisher; Selina Luger; Alan S Gamis; Peter C Adamson; Richard Aplenc
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Frailty and long-term mortality of older breast cancer patients: CALGB 369901 (Alliance).

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Ling Cai; George Luta; Gretchen Kimmick; Jonathan Clapp; Claudine Isaacs; Brandeyln Pitcher; William Barry; Eric Winer; Stephen Sugarman; Clifford Hudis; Hyman Muss; Harvey J Cohen; Arti Hurria
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Factors associated with insufficient awareness of breast cancer among women in Northern and Eastern China: a case-control study.

Authors:  Li-Yuan Liu; Yong-Jiu Wang; Fei Wang; Li-Xiang Yu; Yu-Juan Xiang; Fei Zhou; Liang Li; Qiang Zhang; Qin-Ye Fu; Zhong-Bing Ma; De-Zong Gao; Yu-Yang Li; Zhi-Gang Yu
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-02-20       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Variation in the Assessment of Immune-Related Adverse Event Occurrence, Grade, and Timing in Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Authors:  David Hsiehchen; Mary K Watters; Rong Lu; Yang Xie; David E Gerber
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2019-09-04
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.