Dataset Information

Muddy water? Variation in reporting receipt of breast cancer radiation therapy by population-based tumor registries.

ABSTRACT: To evaluate, in the setting of breast cancer, the accuracy of registry radiation therapy (RT) coding compared with the gold standard of Medicare claims.Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, we identified 73,077 patients aged ?66 years diagnosed with breast cancer in the period 2001-2007. Underascertainment (1 - sensitivity), sensitivity, specificity, ?, and ?(2) were calculated for RT receipt determined by registry data versus claims. Multivariate logistic regression characterized patient, treatment, and geographic factors associated with underascertainment of RT. Findings in the SEER-Medicare registries were compared with three non-SEER registries (Florida, New York, and Texas).In the SEER-Medicare registries, 41.6% (n=30,386) of patients received RT according to registry coding, versus 49.3% (n=36,047) according to Medicare claims (P<.001). Underascertainment of RT was more likely if patients resided in a newer SEER registry (odds ratio [OR] 1.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.60-1.80; P<.001), rural county (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.21-1.48; P<.001), or if RT was delayed (OR 1.006/day, 95% CI 1.006-1.007; P<.001). Underascertainment of RT receipt in SEER registries was 18.7% (95% CI 18.6-18.8%), compared with 44.3% (95% CI 44.0-44.5%) in non-SEER registries.Population-based tumor registries are highly variable in ascertainment of RT receipt and should be augmented with other data sources when evaluating quality of breast cancer care. Future work should identify opportunities for the radiation oncology community to partner with registries to improve accuracy of treatment data.

SUBMITTER: Walker GV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3836610 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Muddy water? Variation in reporting receipt of breast cancer radiation therapy by population-based tumor registries.

Walker Gary V GV Giordano Sharon H SH Williams Melanie M Jiang Jing J Niu Jiangong J MacKinnon Jill J Anderson Patricia P Wohler Brad B Sinclair Amber H AH Boscoe Francis P FP Schymura Maria J MJ Buchholz Thomas A TA Smith Benjamin D BD

International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 20130701 4

<h4>Purpose</h4>To evaluate, in the setting of breast cancer, the accuracy of registry radiation therapy (RT) coding compared with the gold standard of Medicare claims.<h4>Methods and materials</h4>Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, we identified 73,077 patients aged ≥66 years diagnosed with breast cancer in the period 2001-2007. Underascertainment (1 - sensitivity), sensitivity, specificity, κ, and χ(2) were calculated for RT receipt determined by registry d ...[more]

PMID: 23773392

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is associated with improved overall survival (OS) in patients with breast cancer, but it is unclear how post-NACT response influences radiation therapy administration in patients presenting with node-positive disease. We sought to determine whether nodal pCR is associated with likelihood of receiving nodal radiation and whether radiation therapy among patients experiencing nodal pCR is associated with improved OS.Methods and materialsClinical N1 (cN1) female breast cancer patients diagnosed during 2010 to 2015 who were ypN0 (ie, nodal pCR; n = 12,341) or ypN1 (ie, residual disease; n = 13,668) after NACT were identified in the National Cancer Database. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with receiving radiation therapy. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to estimate the association between radiation therapy and adjusted OS.ResultsThe study included 26,009 patients; 43.9% (n = 5423) of ypN0 and 55.3% (n = 7556) of ypN1 patients received nodal radiation. Rates of nodal radiation remained the same over time among ypN0 patients (trend test, P = .29) but increased among ypN1 patients from 49% in 2010 to 59% in 2015 (trend test, P < .001). After adjusting for covariates, nodal pCR (vs no stage change) was associated with decreased likelihood of nodal radiation after mastectomy (∼20% decrease) and lumpectomy (∼30% decrease; both P < .01). After mastectomy, nodal (vs no) radiation conferred no significant survival benefit in ypN0 patients, but it approached significance for ypN1 patients (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.99, P = .04; overall P = .11). After lumpectomy, nodal radiation was associated with improved adjusted OS for ypN0 (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.22-0.66) and ypN1 patients (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.30-0.66; both P < .001), but this improvement was not significantly greater than that associated with breast-only radiation.ConclusionsypN0 patients were less likely to receive nodal radiation than ypN1 patients were, suggesting that selective omission already occurs and, in the context of limited survival data, could potentially be appropriate for select patients.

Project description:ImportanceRates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) have markedly increased but we know little about the influence of surgeons on variability of the procedure in the community.ObjectiveTo quantify the influence of the attending surgeon on rates of CPM and clinician attitudes that explained it.Design, setting, and participantsIn this population-based survey study, we identified 7810 women with stages 0 to II breast cancer treated in 2013 to 2015 through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County. Surveys were sent approximately 2 months after surgery. Surveys were also sent to 488 attending surgeons identified by the patients.Main outcomes and measuresWe conducted multilevel analyses to examine the impact of surgeon influence on variations in patient receipt of CPM using information from patient and surgeon surveys merged to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data.ResultsA total of 5080 women responded to the survey (70% response rate), and 377 surgeons responded (77% response rate). The mean (SD) age of responding women was 61.9 (11) years; 28% had an increased risk of second primary cancer, and 16% received CPM. Half of surgeons (52%) practiced for more than 20 years and 30% treated more than 50 new patients with breast cancer annually. Attending surgeon explained a large amount (20%) of the variation in CPM, controlling for patient factors. The odds of a patient receiving CPM increased almost 3-fold (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 2.1-3.4) if she saw a surgeon with a practice approach 1 SD above a surgeon with the mean CPM rate (independent of age, diagnosis date, BRCA status, and risk of second primary). One-quarter (25%) of the surgeon influence was explained by attending attitudes about initial recommendations for surgery and responses to patient requests for CPM. The estimated rate of CPM was 34% for surgeons who least favored initial breast conservation and were least reluctant to perform CPM vs 4% for surgeons who most favored initial breast conservation and were most reluctant to perform CPM.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, attending surgeons exerted influence on the likelihood of receipt of CPM after a breast cancer diagnosis. Variations in surgeon attitudes about recommendations for surgery and response to patient requests for CPM explain a substantial amount of this influence.

Project description:ImportanceGenetic testing after diagnosis of breast cancer is common, but little is known about the influence of the surgeon on the variation in testing.ObjectivesTo quantify and explain the association of attending surgeon with rates of genetic testing after diagnosis of breast cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based study identified 7810 women with stages 0 to II breast cancer treated between July 1, 2013, and August 31, 2015, through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries for the state of Georgia, as well as Los Angeles County, California. Surveys were sent approximately 2 months after surgery. Also surveyed were 488 attending surgeons identified by the patients.Main outcomes and measuresThe study examined the association of surgeon with variation in the receipt of genetic testing using information from patient and surgeon surveys merged to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and genetic testing data obtained from 4 laboratories.ResultsIn total, 5080 women (69.6%) of 7303 who were eligible (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [0.8] years) and 377 surgeons (77.3%) of 488 (mean [SD] age, 53.8 [10.7] years) responded to the survey. Approximately one-third (34.5% [1350 of 3910] of patients had an elevated risk of mutation carriage, and 27.0% (1056 of 3910) overall had genetic testing. Surgeons had practiced a mean (SE) of 20.9 (0.6) years, and 28.9% (107 of 370) treated more than 50 cases of new breast cancer per year. The odds of a patient receiving genetic testing increased more than 2-fold (odds ratio, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.85-3.31) if she saw a surgeon with an approach 1 SD above that of a surgeon with the mean test rate. Approximately one-third (34.1%) of the surgeon variation was explained by patient volume and surgeon attitudes about genetic testing and counseling. If a patient with higher pretest risk saw a surgeon at the 5th percentile of the surgeon distribution, she would have a 26.3% (95% CI, 21.9%-31.2%) probability of testing compared with 72.3% (95% CI, 66.7%-77.2%) if she saw a surgeon at the 95th percentile.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, the attending surgeon was associated with the receipt of genetic testing after a breast cancer diagnosis. Variation in surgeon attitudes about genetic testing and counseling may explain a substantial amount of this association.

Project description:Objectives: We aimed to study the prevalence of selective reporting of primary and secondary outcomes in tinnitus trials and to examine if selective reporting of outcome measures is influenced by the nature and direction of its results. Background: Selective reporting of outcome measures has been reported in several biomedical fields and can influence the clinical usefulness and implementation of outcomes of clinical trials. It is reported as one of the obstacles in finding an effective intervention for tinnitus. Methods: ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov) was used to identify all registered interventional tinnitus trials up to December 2015. A standardized search was used to find corresponding publications up to March 2018. The prespecified outcomes in CT.gov were compared with the outcomes reported in corresponding publication(s). The effects of the (lack of) statistical significance of trial results and the effects of funding source on record adherence were evaluated. Changes in registration elements were assessed with the Archive site of CT.gov. Results: We found corresponding publications for 60 (64.5%) of 93 eligible tinnitus trials registered in CT.gov. Of all the publications, five (7.5%) fully reported outcome measures entirely in line with the prespecified outcome measures. Discrepancies between the prespecified and reported outcomes were found in a total of 51 (76.1%) of the studies for primary outcomes, whereas 62 (92.5%) of the studies had discrepancies in secondary outcomes. In secondary outcomes, statistical significance of trial results influenced CT.gov record adherence. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference in the rate of discrepancy in industry-funded [n = 98 (87.5%) discrepant outcomes] and non-industry funded trials [n = 172 (74.5%) discrepant outcomes] (p = 0.01). Finally, 15 (25.9%) trialists made modifications in registered outcome measures during or after the trial period. Conclusion: Tinnitus trials suffer from substantial outcome reporting bias. Awareness of its presence must be raised to limit the obstacles of finding an effective intervention for tinnitus.

Dataset Information

Muddy water? Variation in reporting receipt of breast cancer radiation therapy by population-based tumor registries.

Publications

Muddy water? Variation in reporting receipt of breast cancer radiation therapy by population-based tumor registries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets