Dataset Information

Development and Utility of the Observational Research in Oncology Toolbox: Cancer Medications Enquiry Database-Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS).

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Health-care claims are of increasing utility as a rich, real-world data resource for conducting treatment-related cancer research. However, multiple dynamic coding nomenclatures exist, leading to study variability. To promote increased standardization and reproducibility, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) developed the Cancer Medications Enquiry Database (CanMED)-Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) within the Observational Research in Oncology Toolbox.

Methods

The CanMED-HCPCS includes codes for oncology medications that a) have a US Food and Drug Administration-approved indication for cancer treatment or treatment-related symptom management; b) are present in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines; or c) carry an orphan drug designation for treatment or management of cancer. Included medications and their HCPCS codes were primarily identified based on Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services annual HCPCS Indices (2012-2018). To demonstrate the utility of the CanMED-HCPCS, use of systemic treatment for stage II-IV colorectal cancer patients included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data (2007-2013) was assessed.

Results

The CanMED-HCPCS (v2018) includes 332 HCPCS codes for cancer-related medications: chemotherapy (156), immunotherapy (74), hormonal therapy (54), and ancillary therapy (48). Observed treatment trends within the NCI Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data were as expected; utilization of each treatment type increased with stage, and immunotherapy was largely confined to use among stage IV patients.

Conclusion

The CanMED-HCPCS provides a comprehensive resource that can be used by the research community to facilitate systematic identification of medications within claims or electronic health data using the HCPCS nomenclature and greater reproducibility of cancer surveillance and health services research.

SUBMITTER: Rivera DR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7868035 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAdministrative claims data provide an important source for real-world evidence (RWE) generation, but incomplete reporting, such as for body mass index (BMI), limits the sample sizes that can be analyzed to address certain research questions. The objective of this study was to construct models by implementing machine-learning (ML) algorithms to predict BMI classifications (≥ 30, ≥ 35, and ≥ 40 kg/m2) in administrative healthcare claims databases, and then internally and externally validate them.MethodsFive advanced ML algorithms were implemented for each BMI classification on a random sampling of BMI readings from the Optum PanTher Electronic Health Record database (2%) and the Optum Clinformatics Date of Death (20%) database, while incorporating baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Sensitivity analyses with oversampling ratios were conducted. Model performance was validated internally and externally.ResultsModels trained on the Super Learner ML algorithm (SLA) yielded the best BMI classification predictive performance. SLA model 1 utilized sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, including baseline BMI values; the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC) was approximately 88% for the prediction of BMI classifications of ≥ 30, ≥ 35, and ≥ 40 kg/m2 (internal validation), while accuracy ranged from 87.9% to 92.8% and specificity ranged from 91.8% to 94.7%. SLA model 2 utilized sociodemographic information and clinical characteristics, excluding baseline BMI values; ROC AUC was approximately 73% for the prediction of BMI classifications of ≥ 30, ≥ 35, and ≥ 40 kg/m2 (internal validation), while accuracy ranged from 73.6% to 80.0% and specificity ranged from 71.6% to 85.9%. The external validation on the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database yielded relatively consistent results with slightly diminished performance.ConclusionThis study demonstrated the feasibility and validity of using ML algorithms to predict BMI classifications in administrative healthcare claims data to expand the utility for RWE generation.

Project description:IntroductionPolicy makers increasingly need to prioritise between competing health technologies or patient populations. When aiming to align allocation decisions with societal preferences, knowledge and operationalisation of such preferences is indispensable. This study examines the distribution of three views on healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands, labelled "Equal right to healthcare", "Limits to healthcare", and "Effective and efficient healthcare", and their relationship with preferences in willingness to trade-off (WTT) exercises.MethodsA survey including four reimbursement scenarios was conducted in a representative sample of the adult population in the Netherlands (n = 261). Respondents were matched to one of the three views based on their agreement with 14 statements on principles for resource allocation. We tested for WTT differences between respondents with different views and applied logit regression models for examining the relationship between preferences and background characteristics, including views.ResultsNearly 65% of respondents held the view "Equal right to healthcare", followed by "Limits to healthcare" (22.5%), and "Effective and efficient healthcare" (7.1%). Most respondents (75.9%) expressed WTT in at least one scenario and preferred gains in quality of life over life expectancy, maximising gains over limiting inequality, treating children over elderly, and those with adversity over those with an unhealthy lifestyle. Various background characteristics, including the views, were associated with respondents' preferences.ConclusionsMost respondents held an egalitarian view on priority setting, yet the majority was willing to prioritise regardless of their view. Societal views and preferences concerning healthcare priority setting are related. However, respondents' views influence preferences differently in different reimbursement scenarios. As societal views and preferences are heterogeneous and may conflict, aligning allocation decisions with societal preferences remains challenging and any decision may be expected to receive opposition from some group in society.