PURPOSE: We previously developed and validated informatic algorithms that used International Classification of Diseases 9th revision (ICD9)-based diagnostic and procedure codes to detect the presence and timing of cancer recurrence (the RECUR Algorithms). In 2015, ICD10 replaced ICD9 as the worldwide coding standard. To understand the impact of this transition, we evaluated the performance of the RECUR Algorithms after incorporating ICD10 codes. METHODS: Using publicly available translation tables along with clinician and other expertise, we updated the algorithms to include ICD10 codes as additional input variables. We evaluated the performance of the algorithms using gold standard recurrence measures associated with a contemporary cohort of patients with stage I to III breast, colorectal, and lung (excluding IIIB) cancer and derived performance measures, including the area under the receiver operating curve, average absolute prediction error, and correct classification rate. These values were compared with the performance measures derived from the validation of the original algorithms. RESULTS: A total of 659 colorectal, 280 lung, and 2,053 breast cancer cases were identified. Area under the receiver operating curve derived from the updated algorithms was 89.0% (95% CI, 82.3% to 95.7%), 88.9% (95% CI, 79.3% to 98.2%), and 80.5% (95% CI, 72.8% to 88.2%) for the colorectal, lung, and breast cancer algorithms, respectively. Average absolute prediction errors for recurrence timing were 2.7 (SE, 11.3%), 2.4 (SE, 10.4%), and 5.6 months (SE, 21.8%), respectively, and timing estimates were within 6 months of actual recurrence for more than 80% of colorectal, more than 90% of lung, and more than 50% of breast cancer cases using the updated algorithm. CONCLUSION: Performance measures derived from the updated and original algorithms had overlapping confidence intervals, suggesting that the ICD9 to ICD10 transition did not affect the RECUR Algorithm performance.
PURPOSE: We previously developed and validated informatic algorithms that used International Classification of Diseases 9th revision (ICD9)-based diagnostic and procedure codes to detect the presence and timing of cancer recurrence (the RECUR Algorithms). In 2015, ICD10 replaced ICD9 as the worldwide coding standard. To understand the impact of this transition, we evaluated the performance of the RECUR Algorithms after incorporating ICD10 codes. METHODS: Using publicly available translation tables along with clinician and other expertise, we updated the algorithms to include ICD10 codes as additional input variables. We evaluated the performance of the algorithms using gold standard recurrence measures associated with a contemporary cohort of patients with stage I to III breast, colorectal, and lung (excluding IIIB) cancer and derived performance measures, including the area under the receiver operating curve, average absolute prediction error, and correct classification rate. These values were compared with the performance measures derived from the validation of the original algorithms. RESULTS: A total of 659 colorectal, 280 lung, and 2,053 breast cancer cases were identified. Area under the receiver operating curve derived from the updated algorithms was 89.0% (95% CI, 82.3% to 95.7%), 88.9% (95% CI, 79.3% to 98.2%), and 80.5% (95% CI, 72.8% to 88.2%) for the colorectal, lung, and breast cancer algorithms, respectively. Average absolute prediction errors for recurrence timing were 2.7 (SE, 11.3%), 2.4 (SE, 10.4%), and 5.6 months (SE, 21.8%), respectively, and timing estimates were within 6 months of actual recurrence for more than 80% of colorectal, more than 90% of lung, and more than 50% of breast cancer cases using the updated algorithm. CONCLUSION: Performance measures derived from the updated and original algorithms had overlapping confidence intervals, suggesting that the ICD9 to ICD10 transition did not affect the RECUR Algorithm performance.
Authors: Paul J Catalano; John Z Ayanian; Jane C Weeks; Katherine L Kahn; Mary Beth Landrum; Alan M Zaslavsky; Jeannette Lee; Jane Pendergast; David P Harrington Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jessica Chubak; Rebecca Ziebell; Robert T Greenlee; Stacey Honda; Mark C Hornbrook; Mara Epstein; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Pamala A Pawloski; Debra P Ritzwoller; Nirupa R Ghai; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Heather A Clancy; V Paul Doria-Rose; Lawrence H Kushi Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2016-09-17 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Michael J Hassett; Hajime Uno; Angel M Cronin; Nikki M Carroll; Mark C Hornbrook; Debra Ritzwoller Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Mark C Hornbrook; Gene Hart; Jennifer L Ellis; Donald J Bachman; Gary Ansell; Sarah M Greene; Edward H Wagner; Roy Pardee; Mark M Schmidt; Ann Geiger; Amy L Butani; Terry Field; Hassan Fouayzi; Irina Miroshnik; Liyan Liu; Robert Diseker; Karen Wells; Rick Krajenta; Lois Lamerato; Christine Neslund Dudas Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2005
Authors: Hajime Uno; Debra P Ritzwoller; Angel M Cronin; Nikki M Carroll; Mark C Hornbrook; Michael J Hassett Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2018-12
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: 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: Teresa A'mar; Jessica Chubak; Ruth Etzioni; J David Beatty; Catherine Fedorenko; Daniel Markowitz; Thomas Corey; Jane Lange; Stephen M Schwartz; Bin Huang Journal: JMIR Cancer Date: 2020-08-17