Cheryl Vigen1, Marilyn L Kwan2, Esther M John3, Scarlett Lin Gomez3, Theresa H M Keegan3, Yani Lu4, Salma Shariff-Marco3, Kristine R Monroe5, Allison W Kurian6, Iona Cheng3, Bette J Caan2, Valerie S Lee2, Janise M Roh2, Leslie Bernstein4, Richard Sposto7, Anna H Wu8. 1. University of Southern California, 1540 Alcazar St. CHP-133, Los Angeles, CA, 90089-9003, USA. vigen@usc.edu. 2. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 2000 Broadway, Oakland, CA, 94612, USA. 3. Cancer Prevention Institute of California, 2201 Walnut Ave #300, Fremont, CA, 94538, USA. 4. Beckman Research Institute of the City of Hope, 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA. 5. University of Southern California, 1540 Alcazar St. CHP-133, Los Angeles, CA, 90089-9003, USA. 6. Stanford University School of Medicine, 291 Campus Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. 7. University of Southern California, Health Sciences Campus, 4650 Sunset Blvd, SRT 600A, MS#54, Los Angeles, CA, 90027-6016, USA. 8. University of Southern California, Health Sciences Campus, NOR 4443, Mail Code:9175, Los Angeles, CA, 90089-9175, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare information from self-report and electronic medical records for four common comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction, and other heart diseases). METHODS: We pooled data from two multiethnic studies (one case-control and one survivor cohort) enrolling 1,936 women diagnosed with breast cancer, who were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California. RESULTS: Concordance varied by comorbidity; kappa values ranged from 0.50 for other heart diseases to 0.87 for diabetes. Sensitivities for comorbidities from self-report versus medical record were similar for racial/ethnic minorities and non-Hispanic Whites, and did not vary by age, neighborhood socioeconomic status, or education. Women with a longer history of comorbidity or who took medications for the comorbidity were more likely to report the condition. Hazard ratios for all-cause mortality were not consistently affected by source of comorbidity information; the hazard ratio was lower for diabetes, but higher for the other comorbidities when medical record versus self-report was used. Model fit was better when the medical record versus self-reported data were used. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidities are increasingly recognized to influence the survival of patients with breast or other cancers. Potential effects of misclassification of comorbidity status should be considered in the interpretation of research results.
PURPOSE: To compare information from self-report and electronic medical records for four common comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction, and other heart diseases). METHODS: We pooled data from two multiethnic studies (one case-control and one survivor cohort) enrolling 1,936 women diagnosed with breast cancer, who were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California. RESULTS: Concordance varied by comorbidity; kappa values ranged from 0.50 for other heart diseases to 0.87 for diabetes. Sensitivities for comorbidities from self-report versus medical record were similar for racial/ethnic minorities and non-Hispanic Whites, and did not vary by age, neighborhood socioeconomic status, or education. Women with a longer history of comorbidity or who took medications for the comorbidity were more likely to report the condition. Hazard ratios for all-cause mortality were not consistently affected by source of comorbidity information; the hazard ratio was lower for diabetes, but higher for the other comorbidities when medical record versus self-report was used. Model fit was better when the medical record versus self-reported data were used. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidities are increasingly recognized to influence the survival of patients with breast or other cancers. Potential effects of misclassification of comorbidity status should be considered in the interpretation of research results.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Comorbidity; Concordance; Misclassification; Sensitivity and specificity; Survival
Authors: W J Louwman; M L G Janssen-Heijnen; S Houterman; A C Voogd; M J C van der Sangen; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen; J W W Coebergh Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Anna H Wu; Allison W Kurian; Marilyn L Kwan; Esther M John; Yani Lu; Theresa H M Keegan; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Iona Cheng; Salma Shariff-Marco; Bette J Caan; Valerie S Lee; Jane Sullivan-Halley; Chiu-Chen Tseng; Leslie Bernstein; Richard Sposto; Cheryl Vigen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Ruth E Patterson; Shirley W Flatt; Nazmus Saquib; Cheryl L Rock; Bette J Caan; Barbara A Parker; Gail A Laughlin; Kirsten Erickson; Cynthia A Thomson; Wayne A Bardwell; Richard A Hajek; John P Pierce Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-01-14 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Sarah Nechuta; Wei Lu; Ying Zheng; Hui Cai; Ping-Ping Bao; Kai Gu; Wei Zheng; Xiao Ou Shu Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-04-19 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: José M Baena-Díez; María T Alzamora-Sas; María Grau; Isaac Subirana; Joan Vila; Pere Torán; Ylenia García-Navarro; Noemí Bermúdez-Chillida; Judit Alegre-Basagaña; María Viozquez-Meia; Jaume Marrugat Journal: Gac Sanit Date: 2009-05-31 Impact factor: 2.139
Authors: Lu Zhang; Jessica King; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Mei-Chin Hsieh; Vivien W Chen; Qingzhao Yu; Elizabeth Fontham; Michelle Loch; Lori A Pollack; Tekeda Ferguson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Antonia V Bennett; Mattias Jonsson; Ronald C Chen; Sana M Al-Khatib; Kevin P Weinfurt; Lesley H Curtis Journal: Healthc (Amst) Date: 2020-07-16