Accuracy of administrative databases in detecting primary breast cancer diagnoses: a systematic review

Iosief Abraha, Alessandro Montedori, Diego Serraino, Massimiliano Orso, Gianni Giovannini, Valeria Scotti, Annalisa Granata, Francesco Cozzolino, Mario Fusco, Ettore Bidoli, Iosief Abraha, Alessandro Montedori, Diego Serraino, Massimiliano Orso, Gianni Giovannini, Valeria Scotti, Annalisa Granata, Francesco Cozzolino, Mario Fusco, Ettore Bidoli

Abstract

Objective: To define the accuracy of administrative datasets to identify primary diagnoses of breast cancer based on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9th or 10th revision codes.

Design: Systematic review.

Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library (April 2017).

Eligibility criteria: The inclusion criteria were: (a) the presence of a reference standard; (b) the presence of at least one accuracy test measure (eg, sensitivity) and (c) the use of an administrative database.

Data extraction: Eligible studies were selected and data extracted independently by two reviewers; quality was assessed using the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy criteria.

Data analysis: Extracted data were synthesised using a narrative approach.

Results: From 2929 records screened 21 studies were included (data collection period between 1977 and 2011). Eighteen studies evaluated ICD-9 codes (11 of which assessed both invasive breast cancer (code 174.x) and carcinoma in situ (ICD-9 233.0)); three studies evaluated invasive breast cancer-related ICD-10 codes. All studies except one considered incident cases.The initial algorithm results were: sensitivity ≥80% in 11 of 17 studies (range 57%-99%); positive predictive value was ≥83% in 14 of 19 studies (range 15%-98%) and specificity ≥98% in 8 studies. The combination of the breast cancer diagnosis with surgical procedures, chemoradiation or radiation therapy, outpatient data or physician claim may enhance the accuracy of the algorithms in some but not all circumstances. Accuracy for breast cancer based on outpatient or physician's data only or breast cancer diagnosis in secondary position diagnosis resulted low.

Conclusion: Based on the retrieved evidence, administrative databases can be employed to identify primary breast cancer. The best algorithm suggested is ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes located in primary position.

Trial registration number: CRD42015026881.

Keywords: accuracy; administrative database; breast cancer; sensitivity and specificity; systematic review; validity.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study screening process.

References

    1. Sullivan R, Peppercorn J, Sikora K, et al. . Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:933–80. 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70141-3
    1. Ginsburg O, Bray F, Coleman MP, et al. . The global burden of women’s cancers: a grand challenge in global health. Lancet 2017;389:847–60. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31392-7
    1. Jemal A, Center MM, DeSantis C, et al. . Global patterns of cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19:1893–907. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0437
    1. Chen HF, Liu MD, Chen P, et al. . Risks of Breast and Endometrial Cancer in Women with Diabetes: A Population-Based Cohort Study. PLoS One 2013;8:e67420 10.1371/journal.pone.0067420
    1. Escribà JM, Pareja L, Esteban L, et al. . Trends in the surgical procedures of women with incident breast cancer in Catalonia, Spain, over a 7-year period (2005-2011). BMC Res Notes 2014;7:587 10.1186/1756-0500-7-587
    1. Montero AJ, Eapen S, Gorin B, et al. . The economic burden of metastatic breast cancer: a U.S. managed care perspective. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;134:815–22. 10.1007/s10549-012-2097-2
    1. Earle CC, Venditti LN, Neumann PJ, et al. . Who gets chemotherapy for metastatic lung cancer? Chest 2000;117:1239–46. 10.1378/chest.117.5.1239
    1. Song X, Zhao Z, Barber B, et al. . Treatment patterns and metastasectomy among mCRC patients receiving chemotherapy and biologics. Curr Med Res Opin 2011;27:123–30. 10.1185/03007995.2010.536912
    1. Vachon B, Désorcy B, Gaboury I, et al. . Combining administrative data feedback, reflection and action planning to engage primary care professionals in quality improvement: qualitative assessment of short term program outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res 2015;15:391 10.1186/s12913-015-1056-0
    1. Yuen E, Louis D, Cisbani L, et al. . Using administrative data to identify and stage breast cancer cases: implications for assessing quality of care. Tumori 2011;97:428–35. 10.1177/030089161109700403
    1. Whyte JL, Engel-Nitz NM, Teitelbaum A, et al. . An Evaluation of Algorithms for Identifying Metastatic Breast, Lung, or Colorectal Cancer in Administrative Claims Data. Med Care 2015;53:e49–e57. 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318289c3fb
    1. Bremner KE, Krahn MD, Warren JL, et al. . An international comparison of costs of end-of-life care for advanced lung cancer patients using health administrative data. Palliat Med 2015;29:918–28. 10.1177/0269216315596505
    1. Mittmann N, Liu N, Porter J, et al. . Utilization and costs of home care for patients with colorectal cancer: a population-based study. CMAJ Open 2014;2:E11–17. 10.9778/cmajo.20130026
    1. Schneeweiss S, Avorn J. A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologic research on therapeutics. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:323–37. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.012
    1. Schulman KL, Berenson K, Tina Shih YC, et al. . A checklist for ascertaining study cohorts in oncology health services research using secondary data: report of the ISPOR oncology good outcomes research practices working group. Value Health 2013;16:655–69. 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.006
    1. Sarrazin MS, Rosenthal GE. Finding pure and simple truths with administrative data. JAMA 2012;307:1433–5. 10.1001/jama.2012.404
    1. West SL, Strom BL, Poole C. Validity of Pharmacoepidemiologic Drug and Diagnosis Data, in Pharmacoepidemiology: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2007:709–65.
    1. Cox E, Martin BC, Van Staa T, et al. . Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report--Part II. Value Health 2009;12:1053–61. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00601.x
    1. Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, et al. . ESMO Guidelines Committee. Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2015;26(suppl 5):v8–30. 10.1093/annonc/mdv298
    1. Weycker D, Edelsberg J, Kartashov A, et al. . Risk and healthcare costs of chemotherapy-induced neutropenic complications in women with metastatic breast cancer. Chemotherapy 2012;58:8–18. 10.1159/000335604
    1. Vera-Llonch M, Weycker D, Glass A, et al. . Healthcare costs in patients with metastatic lung cancer receiving chemotherapy. BMC Health Serv Res 2011;11:305 10.1186/1472-6963-11-305
    1. Nordstrom BL, Whyte JL, Stolar M, et al. . Identification of metastatic cancer in claims data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2012;21(Suppl 2):21–8. 10.1002/pds.3247
    1. Abraha I, Serraino D, Giovannini G, et al. . Validity of ICD-9-CM codes for breast, lung and colorectal cancers in three Italian administrative healthcare databases: a diagnostic accuracy study protocol. BMJ Open 2016;6:e010547 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010547
    1. Montedori A, Bidoli E, Serraino D, et al. . Accuracy of lung cancer ICD-9-CM codes in Umbria, Napoli 3 Sud and Friuli Venezia Giulia administrative healthcare databases: a diagnostic accuracy study. BMJ Open 2018;8:e020628 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020628
    1. Orso M, Serraino D, Abraha I, et al. . Validating malignant melanoma ICD-9-CM codes in Umbria, ASL Napoli 3 Sud and Friuli Venezia Giulia administrative healthcare databases: a diagnostic accuracy study. BMJ Open 2018;8:e020631 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020631
    1. Abraha I, Giovannini G, Serraino D, et al. . Validity of breast, lung and colorectal cancer diagnoses in administrative databases: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open 2016;6:e010409 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010409
    1. Montedori A, Abraha I, Chiatti C, et al. . Validity of peptic ulcer disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding diagnoses in administrative databases: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open 2016;6:e011776 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011776
    1. Rimland JM, Abraha I, Luchetta ML, et al. . Validation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) diagnoses in healthcare databases: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open 2016;6:e011777 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011777
    1. Cozzolino F, Abraha I, Orso M, et al. . Protocol for validating cardiovascular and cerebrovascular ICD-9-CM codes in healthcare administrative databases: the Umbria Data Value Project. BMJ Open 2017;7:e013785 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013785
    1. Benchimol EI, Manuel DG, To T, et al. . Development and use of reporting guidelines for assessing the quality of validation studies of health administrative data. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:821–9. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.10.006
    1. Carnahan RM, Moores KG. Mini-Sentinel’s systematic reviews of validated methods for identifying health outcomes using administrative and claims data: methods and lessons learned. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2012;21:82–9. 10.1002/pds.2321
    1. McPheeters ML, Sathe NA, Jerome RN, et al. . Methods for systematic reviews of administrative database studies capturing health outcomes of interest. Vaccine 2013;31(Suppl 10):K2–6. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.06.048
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700 10.1136/bmj.b2700
    1. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;349:g7647 10.1136/bmj.g7647
    1. Chubak J, Pocobelli G, Weiss NS. Tradeoffs between accuracy measures for electronic health care data algorithms. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:343–9. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.09.002
    1. Dean BB, Lam J, Natoli JL, et al. . Review: use of electronic medical records for health outcomes research: a literature review. Med Care Res Rev 2009;66:611–38. 10.1177/1077558709332440
    1. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. . Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:40–4. 10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00010
    1. Baldi I, Vicari P, Di Cuonzo D, et al. . A high positive predictive value algorithm using hospital administrative data identified incident cancer cases. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:373–9. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.05.017
    1. Cooper GS, Yuan Z, Stange KC, et al. . The sensitivity of Medicare claims data for case ascertainment of six common cancers. Med Care 1999;37:436–44. 10.1097/00005650-199905000-00003
    1. Couris CM, Polazzi S, Olive F, et al. . Breast cancer incidence using administrative data: correction with sensitivity and specificity. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:660–6. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.07.013
    1. Fisher ES, Whaley FS, Krushat WM, et al. . The accuracy of Medicare’s hospital claims data: progress has been made, but problems remain. Am J Public Health 1992;82:243–8. 10.2105/AJPH.82.2.243
    1. Freeman JL, Zhang D, Freeman DH, et al. . An approach to identifying incident breast cancer cases using Medicare claims data. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:605–14. 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00173-0
    1. Kemp A, Preen DB, Saunders C, et al. . Ascertaining invasive breast cancer cases; the validity of administrative and self-reported data sources in Australia. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;13:17 10.1186/1471-2288-13-17
    1. Koroukian SM, Cooper GS, Rimm AA. Ability of Medicaid claims data to identify incident cases of breast cancer in the Ohio Medicaid population. Health Serv Res 2003;38:947–60. 10.1111/1475-6773.00155
    1. Leung KM, Hasan AG, Rees KS, et al. . Patients with newly diagnosed carcinoma of the breast: validation of a claim-based identification algorithm. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:57–64. 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00143-7
    1. McClish DK, Penberthy L, Whittemore M, et al. . Ability of Medicare claims data and cancer registries to identify cancer cases and treatment. Am J Epidemiol 1997;145:227–33. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009095
    1. Nattinger AB, Laud PW, Bajorunaite R, et al. . An algorithm for the use of Medicare claims data to identify women with incident breast cancer. Health Serv Res 2004;39(6 Pt 1):1733–50. 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00315.x
    1. Penberthy L, et al. . The added value of claims for cancer surveillance: results of varying case definitions. Med Care 2005;43:705–12.
    1. Sato I, Yagata H, Ohashi Y. The accuracy of Japanese claims data in identifying breast cancer cases. Biol Pharm Bull 2015;38:53–7. 10.1248/bpb.b14-00543
    1. Solin LJ, Legorreta A, Schultz DJ, et al. . Analysis of a claims database for the identification of patients with carcinoma of the breast. J Med Syst 1994;18:23–32. 10.1007/BF00999321
    1. Solin LJ, MacPherson S, Schultz DJ, et al. . Evaluation of an algorithm to identify women with carcinoma of the breast. J Med Syst 1997;21:189–99. 10.1023/A:1022864307036
    1. Warren JL, Feuer E, Potosky AL, et al. . Use of Medicare hospital and physician data to assess breast cancer incidence. Med Care 1999;37:445–56. 10.1097/00005650-199905000-00004
    1. Warren JL, Riley GF, McBean AM, et al. . Use of Medicare data to identify incident breast cancer cases. Health Care Financ Rev 1996;18:237–46.
    1. Ganry O, Taleb A, Peng J, et al. . Evaluation of an algorithm to identify incident breast cancer cases using DRGs data. Eur J Cancer Prev 2003;12:295–9. 10.1097/00008469-200308000-00009
    1. McBean AM, Warren JL, Babish JD. Measuring the incidence of cancer in elderly Americans using Medicare claims data. Cancer 1994;73:2417–25. 10.1002/1097-0142(19940501)73:9<2417::AID-CNCR2820730927>;2-L
    1. Setoguchi S, Solomon DH, Glynn RJ, et al. . Agreement of diagnosis and its date for hematologic malignancies and solid tumors between medicare claims and cancer registry data. Cancer Causes Control 2007;18:561–9. 10.1007/s10552-007-0131-1
    1. Wang PS, Walker AM, Tsuang MT, et al. . Finding incident breast cancer cases through US claims data and a state cancer registry. Cancer Causes Control 2001;12:257–65. 10.1023/A:1011204704153
    1. Ramsey SD, Scoggins JF, Blough DK, et al. . Sensitivity of administrative claims to identify incident cases of lung cancer: a comparison of 3 health plans. J Manag Care Pharm 2009;15:659–68. 10.18553/jmcp.2009.15.8.659
    1. Penberthy L, McClish D, Manning C, et al. . The added value of claims for cancer surveillance: results of varying case definitions. Med Care 2005;43:705–12.
    1. Chawla N, Yabroff KR, Mariotto A, et al. . Limited validity of diagnosis codes in Medicare claims for identifying cancer metastases and inferring stage. Ann Epidemiol 2014;24:666–72. 10.1016/j.annepidem.2014.06.099
    1. Cooper GS, Yuan Z, Stange KC, et al. . The utility of Medicare claims data for measuring cancer stage. Med Care 1999;37:706–11. 10.1097/00005650-199907000-00010
    1. Thomas SK, Brooks SE, Mullins CD, et al. . Use of ICD-9 coding as a proxy for stage of disease in lung cancer. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002;11:709–13. 10.1002/pds.759
    1. Chubak J, Yu O, Pocobelli G, et al. . Administrative data algorithms to identify second breast cancer events following early-stage invasive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:931–40. 10.1093/jnci/djs233
    1. Abraha I, Orso M, Grilli P, et al. . The Current State of Validation of Administrative Healthcare Databases in Italy: A Systematic Review. Int J Stat Med Res 2014;3:309–20. 10.6000/1929-6029.2014.03.03.10

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅