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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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