BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is a commonly studied outcome in administrative claims studies, but there is a dearth of validated case identifying algorithms. The long-term development of the disease increases the difficulty in separating prevalent from incident prostate cancer. The purpose of this validation study was to assess the accuracy of a claims algorithm to identify incident prostate cancer among men in commercial and Medicare Advantage US health plans. METHODS: We identified prostate cancer in claims as a prostate cancer diagnosis within 28 days after a prostate biopsy and compared case ascertainment in the claims with the gold standard results from the Georgia Comprehensive Cancer Registry (GCCR). RESULTS: We identified 74,008 men from a large health plan claims database for possible linkage with GCCR. Among the 382 prostate cancer cases identified in claims, 312 were also identified in the GCCR (positive predictive value [PPV] = 82%). Of the registry cases, 91% (95% confidence interval = 88, 94) were correctly identified in claims. Claims and registry diagnosis dates of prostate cancer matched exactly in 254/312 (81%) cases. Nearly half of the false-positive cases also had claims for prostate cancer treatment. Thirteen (43%) false-negative cases were classified as noncases by virtue of having a biopsy and diagnosis >28 days apart as required by the algorithm. Compared to matches, false-negative cases were older men with less aggressive prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our algorithm demonstrated a PPV of 82% with 92% sensitivity in ascertaining incident PC. Administrative health plan claims can be a valuable and accurate source to identify incident prostate cancer cases.
BACKGROUND:Prostate cancer is a commonly studied outcome in administrative claims studies, but there is a dearth of validated case identifying algorithms. The long-term development of the disease increases the difficulty in separating prevalent from incident prostate cancer. The purpose of this validation study was to assess the accuracy of a claims algorithm to identify incident prostate cancer among men in commercial and Medicare Advantage US health plans. METHODS: We identified prostate cancer in claims as a prostate cancer diagnosis within 28 days after a prostate biopsy and compared case ascertainment in the claims with the gold standard results from the Georgia Comprehensive Cancer Registry (GCCR). RESULTS: We identified 74,008 men from a large health plan claims database for possible linkage with GCCR. Among the 382 prostate cancer cases identified in claims, 312 were also identified in the GCCR (positive predictive value [PPV] = 82%). Of the registry cases, 91% (95% confidence interval = 88, 94) were correctly identified in claims. Claims and registry diagnosis dates of prostate cancer matched exactly in 254/312 (81%) cases. Nearly half of the false-positive cases also had claims for prostate cancer treatment. Thirteen (43%) false-negative cases were classified as noncases by virtue of having a biopsy and diagnosis >28 days apart as required by the algorithm. Compared to matches, false-negative cases were older men with less aggressive prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our algorithm demonstrated a PPV of 82% with 92% sensitivity in ascertaining incident PC. Administrative health plan claims can be a valuable and accurate source to identify incident prostate cancer cases.
Authors: Stephan Lanes; Jeffrey S Brown; Kevin Haynes; Michael F Pollack; Alexander M Walker Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: D K McClish; L Penberthy; M Whittemore; C Newschaffer; D Woolard; C E Desch; S Retchin Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1997-02-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Michael L Barnett; Zirui Song; Sherri Rose; Asaf Bitton; Michael E Chernew; Bruce E Landon Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Matthew R Smith; Won Chan Lee; Jane Brandman; Qin Wang; Marc Botteman; Chris L Pashos Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marie-Hélène Lafeuille; Jonathan Gravel; Amanda Grittner; Patrick Lefebvre; Lorie Ellis; R Scott McKenzie Journal: Am Health Drug Benefits Date: 2013-07
Authors: Ruth Etzioni; David F Penson; Julie M Legler; Dante di Tommaso; Rob Boer; Peter H Gann; Eric J Feuer Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-07-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Michael B Cook; Daniel C Beachler; Lauren E Parlett; Philip T Cochetti; William D Finkle; Stephan Lanes; Robert N Hoover Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Sarah P Huepenbecker; Hui Zhao; Charlotte C Sun; Shuangshuang Fu; Weiguo He; Sharon H Giordano; Larissa A Meyer Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2022-03
Authors: Megan A Mullins; Jasdeep S Kler; Marisa R Eastman; Mohammed Kabeto; Lauren P Wallner; Lindsay C Kobayashi Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-11-04 Impact factor: 4.090