PURPOSE: Treatment and monitoring options for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) are increasing, but little is known about variability in care. We sought to improve understanding of MBC care and its correlates by analyzing real-world claims data using a search engine with a novel query language to enable temporal electronic phenotyping. METHODS: Using the Advanced Cohort Engine, we identified 6,180 women who met criteria for having estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative MBC from IBM MarketScan US insurance claims (2007-2014). We characterized treatment, monitoring, and hospice usage, along with clinical and nonclinical factors affecting care. RESULTS: We observed wide variability in treatment modality and monitoring across patients and geography. Most women received first-recorded therapy with endocrine (67%) versus chemotherapy, underwent more computed tomography (CT) (76%) than positron emission tomography-CT, and were monitored using tumor markers (58%). Nearly half (46%) met criteria for aggressive disease, which were associated with receiving chemotherapy first, monitoring primarily with CT, and more frequent imaging. Older age was associated with endocrine therapy first, less frequent imaging, and less use of tumor markers. After controlling for clinical factors, care strategies varied significantly by nonclinical factors (median regional income with first-recorded therapy and imaging type, geographic region with these and with imaging frequency and use of tumor markers; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Variability in US MBC care is explained by patient and disease factors and by nonclinical factors such as geographic region, suggesting that treatment decisions are influenced by local practice patterns and/or resources. A search engine designed to express complex electronic phenotypes from longitudinal patient records enables the identification of variability in patient care, helping to define disparities and areas for improvement.
PURPOSE: Treatment and monitoring options for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) are increasing, but little is known about variability in care. We sought to improve understanding of MBC care and its correlates by analyzing real-world claims data using a search engine with a novel query language to enable temporal electronic phenotyping. METHODS: Using the Advanced Cohort Engine, we identified 6,180 women who met criteria for having estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative MBC from IBM MarketScan US insurance claims (2007-2014). We characterized treatment, monitoring, and hospice usage, along with clinical and nonclinical factors affecting care. RESULTS: We observed wide variability in treatment modality and monitoring across patients and geography. Most women received first-recorded therapy with endocrine (67%) versus chemotherapy, underwent more computed tomography (CT) (76%) than positron emission tomography-CT, and were monitored using tumor markers (58%). Nearly half (46%) met criteria for aggressive disease, which were associated with receiving chemotherapy first, monitoring primarily with CT, and more frequent imaging. Older age was associated with endocrine therapy first, less frequent imaging, and less use of tumor markers. After controlling for clinical factors, care strategies varied significantly by nonclinical factors (median regional income with first-recorded therapy and imaging type, geographic region with these and with imaging frequency and use of tumor markers; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Variability in US MBC care is explained by patient and disease factors and by nonclinical factors such as geographic region, suggesting that treatment decisions are influenced by local practice patterns and/or resources. A search engine designed to express complex electronic phenotypes from longitudinal patient records enables the identification of variability in patient care, helping to define disparities and areas for improvement.
Authors: Li Tao; Laura Chu; Lisa I Wang; Lisa Moy; Melissa Brammer; Chunyan Song; Marjorie Green; Allison W Kurian; Scarlett L Gomez; Christina A Clarke Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Michaela A Dinan; Lesley H Curtis; Bradley G Hammill; Edward F Patz; Amy P Abernethy; Alisa M Shea; Kevin A Schulman Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-04-28 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Ravi K Goyal; Gebra Cuyun Carter; Saurabh P Nagar; Emily N Smyth; Gregory L Price; Yu-Jing Huang; Li Li; Keith L Davis; James A Kaye Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Andreas D Hartkopf; Jens Huober; Bernhard Volz; Naiba Nabieva; Florin-Andrei Taran; Judith Schwitulla; Friedrich Overkamp; Hans-Christian Kolberg; Peyman Hadji; Hans Tesch; Lothar Häberle; Johannes Ettl; Michael P Lux; Diana Lüftner; Markus Wallwiener; Volkmar Müller; Matthias W Beckmann; Erik Belleville; Pauline Wimberger; Carsten Hielscher; Matthias Geberth; Nikos Fersis; Wolfgang Abenhardt; Christian Kurbacher; Rachel Wuerstlein; Christoph Thomssen; Michael Untch; Peter A Fasching; Wolfgang Janni; Tanja N Fehm; Diethelm Wallwiener; Sara Y Brucker; Andreas Schneeweiss Journal: Breast Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Jennifer L Caswell-Jin; Sylvia K Plevritis; Lu Tian; Christopher J Cadham; Cong Xu; Natasha K Stout; George W Sledge; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Allison W Kurian Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2018-12-24
Authors: Ruijun Chen; Patrick Ryan; Karthik Natarajan; Thomas Falconer; Katherine D Crew; Christian G Reich; Rohit Vashisht; Gurvaneet Randhawa; Nigam H Shah; George Hripcsak Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2020-03