Candyce H Kroenke1, Jessica Chubak2, Lisa Johnson2, Adrienne Castillo2, Erin Weltzien2, Bette J Caan2. 1. Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Division of Research, Oakland, CA (CHK, AC, EW, BJC); Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA (JC); Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Public Health Sciences Division, Seattle, WA (LJ). candyce.h.kroenke@kp.org. 2. Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Division of Research, Oakland, CA (CHK, AC, EW, BJC); Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA (JC); Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Public Health Sciences Division, Seattle, WA (LJ).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The utility of data-based algorithms in research has been questioned because of errors in identification of cancer recurrences. We adapted previously published breast cancer recurrence algorithms, selectively using medical record (MR) data to improve classification. METHODS: We evaluated second breast cancer event (SBCE) and recurrence-specific algorithms previously published by Chubak and colleagues in 1535 women from the Life After Cancer Epidemiology (LACE) and 225 women from the Women's Health Initiative cohorts and compared classification statistics to published values. We also sought to improve classification with minimal MR examination. We selected pairs of algorithms-one with high sensitivity/high positive predictive value (PPV) and another with high specificity/high PPV-using MR information to resolve discrepancies between algorithms, properly classifying events based on review; we called this "triangulation." Finally, in LACE, we compared associations between breast cancer survival risk factors and recurrence using MR data, single Chubak algorithms, and triangulation. RESULTS: The SBCE algorithms performed well in identifying SBCE and recurrences. Recurrence-specific algorithms performed more poorly than published except for the high-specificity/high-PPV algorithm, which performed well. The triangulation method (sensitivity = 81.3%, specificity = 99.7%, PPV = 98.1%, NPV = 96.5%) improved recurrence classification over two single algorithms (sensitivity = 57.1%, specificity = 95.5%, PPV = 71.3%, NPV = 91.9%; and sensitivity = 74.6%, specificity = 97.3%, PPV = 84.7%, NPV = 95.1%), with 10.6% MR review. Triangulation performed well in survival risk factor analyses vs analyses using MR-identified recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: Use of multiple recurrence algorithms in administrative data, in combination with selective examination of MR data, may improve recurrence data quality and reduce research costs.
BACKGROUND: The utility of data-based algorithms in research has been questioned because of errors in identification of cancer recurrences. We adapted previously published breast cancer recurrence algorithms, selectively using medical record (MR) data to improve classification. METHODS: We evaluated second breast cancer event (SBCE) and recurrence-specific algorithms previously published by Chubak and colleagues in 1535 women from the Life After Cancer Epidemiology (LACE) and 225 women from the Women's Health Initiative cohorts and compared classification statistics to published values. We also sought to improve classification with minimal MR examination. We selected pairs of algorithms-one with high sensitivity/high positive predictive value (PPV) and another with high specificity/high PPV-using MR information to resolve discrepancies between algorithms, properly classifying events based on review; we called this "triangulation." Finally, in LACE, we compared associations between breast cancer survival risk factors and recurrence using MR data, single Chubak algorithms, and triangulation. RESULTS: The SBCE algorithms performed well in identifying SBCE and recurrences. Recurrence-specific algorithms performed more poorly than published except for the high-specificity/high-PPV algorithm, which performed well. The triangulation method (sensitivity = 81.3%, specificity = 99.7%, PPV = 98.1%, NPV = 96.5%) improved recurrence classification over two single algorithms (sensitivity = 57.1%, specificity = 95.5%, PPV = 71.3%, NPV = 91.9%; and sensitivity = 74.6%, specificity = 97.3%, PPV = 84.7%, NPV = 95.1%), with 10.6% MR review. Triangulation performed well in survival risk factor analyses vs analyses using MR-identified recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: Use of multiple recurrence algorithms in administrative data, in combination with selective examination of MR data, may improve recurrence data quality and reduce research costs.
Authors: Jennifer Hays; Julie R Hunt; F Allan Hubbell; Garnet L Anderson; Marian Limacher; Catherine Allen; Jacques E Rossouw Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: J David Curb; Anne McTiernan; Susan R Heckbert; Charles Kooperberg; Janet Stanford; Michael Nevitt; Karen C Johnson; Lori Proulx-Burns; Lisa Pastore; Michael Criqui; Sandra Daugherty Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Jessica Chubak; Onchee Yu; Gaia Pocobelli; Lois Lamerato; Joe Webster; Marianne N Prout; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; William E Barlow; Diana S M Buist Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-04-30 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Bette Caan; Barbara Sternfeld; Erica Gunderson; Ashley Coates; Charles Quesenberry; Martha L Slattery Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Michael J Hassett; Debra P Ritzwoller; Nathan Taback; Nikki Carroll; Angel M Cronin; Gladys V Ting; Deb Schrag; Joan L Warren; Mark C Hornbrook; Jane C Weeks Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Lu Chen; Jessica Chubak; Denise M Boudreau; William E Barlow; Noel S Weiss; Christopher I Li Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 4.254
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: 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: Song Yao; Marilyn L Kwan; Isaac J Ergas; Janise M Roh; Ting-Yuan David Cheng; Chi-Chen Hong; Susan E McCann; Li Tang; Warren Davis; Song Liu; Charles P Quesenberry; Marion M Lee; Christine B Ambrosone; Lawrence H Kushi Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Yuan Xu; Shiying Kong; Winson Y Cheung; Antoine Bouchard-Fortier; Joseph C Dort; Hude Quan; Elizabeth M Buie; Geoff McKinnon; May Lynn Quan Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Claire M B Holloway; Omid Shabestari; Maria Eberg; Katharina Forster; Paula Murray; Bo Green; Ali Vahit Esensoy; Andrea Eisen; Jonathan Sussman Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 3.109