Literature DB >> 31756128

Feasibility of Capturing Cancer Treatment Data in the Utah All-Payer Claims Database.

Mia Hashibe1,2, Judy Y Ou1,2, Kimberly Herget1, Dan Bolton2, Jordan McPherson2, Charles Hawley3, Jennifer Garvin4, Jennifer A Doherty1,2, Carol Sweeney1,2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Incompleteness of treatment data is a recognized limitation of cancer registry data. An all-payer claims database (APCD) is a tool that states use to capture health care information across systems and payer. We linked the Utah Cancer Registry (UCR) records to Utah's statewide APCD and evaluated how this linkage led to improvements in the capture of cancer treatment information.
METHODS: We linked cancers diagnosed and reported to the UCR with Utah APCD claims for the calendar years 2013 and 2014 using LinkPlus Software. For patients with breast or colorectal cancers, manual abstraction was completed to provide a gold-standard comparison for the treatment data obtained from the claims.
RESULTS: Among 10,759 reportable cancer occurrences linked to the APCD, the claims identified additional patients with cancer who received therapies that had been unknown to the registry, increasing the proportion treated with chemotherapy from 23.7% to 27.6%, hormone therapy from 14.1% to 18.8%, immunotherapy from 4.3% to 13.2%, and radiation therapy from 24.9% to 27.5%. The APCD increased the sensitivity of treatment variables compared with the abstraction gold standard. Notably, sensitivity of hormonal therapy for breast cancer increased from 78.6% to 95.2% when augmented with APCD claims data. However, the APCD alone did not achieve as high specificity for treatment data as did the data collected through traditional registry methods.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study, to our knowledge, showing that linking cancer registry data with a statewide claims database that covers multiple insurance companies improves cancer treatment data collection. Linking of cancer registry and APCD data can improve comprehensiveness of cancer registry treatment data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31756128      PMCID: PMC6882521          DOI: 10.1200/CCI.19.00027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform        ISSN: 2473-4276


  17 in total

1.  Chemotherapy in women with breast cancer.

Authors:  Linda C Harlan; Limin X Clegg; Joan L Warren
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-11-18       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  The surveillance, epidemiology, and end-results program database as a resource for conducting descriptive epidemiologic and clinical studies.

Authors:  Linda C Harlan; Benjamin F Hankey
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-06-15       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  The value of billing data from oncology practice to supplement treatment information for cancer surveillance.

Authors:  Lynne Penberthy; Valentina Petkov; Donna McClish; Steven Peace; Sandra Overton; Soundarya Radhakrishnan; Chris Gillam
Journal:  J Registry Manag       Date:  2014

Review 4.  NCI SEER public-use data: applications and limitations in oncology research.

Authors:  James B Yu; Cary P Gross; Lynn D Wilson; Benjamin D Smith
Journal:  Oncology (Williston Park)       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 2.990

5.  Linkage between Utah All Payers Claims Database and Central Cancer Registry.

Authors:  Jennifer Hornung Garvin; Kimberly A Herget; Mia Hashibe; Anne C Kirchhoff; Charles W Hawley; Dan Bolton; Carol Sweeney
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Linked insurance-tumor registry database for health services research.

Authors:  B N Doebbeling; D K Wyant; K D McCoy; S Riggs; R F Woolson; D Wagner; R T Wilson; C F Lynch
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Underascertainment of radiotherapy receipt in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry data.

Authors:  Reshma Jagsi; Paul Abrahamse; Sarah T Hawley; John J Graff; Ann S Hamilton; Steven J Katz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Use of SEER-Medicare data for measuring cancer surgery.

Authors:  Gregory S Cooper; Beth Virnig; Carrie N Klabunde; Nicola Schussler; Jean Freeman; Joan L Warren
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Measuring breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening with medicare claims data.

Authors:  Jean L Freeman; Carrie N Klabunde; Nicola Schussler; Joan L Warren; Beth A Virnig; Gregory S Cooper
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Comparison of SEER Treatment Data With Medicare Claims.

Authors:  Anne-Michelle Noone; Jennifer L Lund; Angela Mariotto; Kathleen Cronin; Timothy McNeel; Dennis Deapen; Joan L Warren
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 3.178

View more
  3 in total

1.  Capitalizing on Central Registries for Expanded Cancer Surveillance and Research.

Authors:  Cathy J Bradley; Julia Entwistle; Lindsay M Sabik; Richard C Lindrooth; Marcelo Perraillon
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  BRCA1/2 testing among young women with breast cancer in Massachusetts, 2010-2013: An observational study using state cancer registry and All-Payer claims data.

Authors:  Lydia E Pace; John Z Ayanian; Robert E Wolf; Richard Knowlton; Susan T Gershman; Summer Sherburne Hawkins; Nancy L Keating
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 4.711

3.  Cancer Treatment Data in Central Cancer Registries: When Are Supplemental Data Needed?

Authors:  Cathy J Bradley; Rifei Liang; Jagar Jasem; Richard C Lindrooth; Lindsay M Sabik; Marcelo C Perraillon
Journal:  Cancer Inform       Date:  2022-07-30
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.