Estimating Chemotherapy Use Among Patients With a Prior Primary Cancer Diagnosis Using SEER-Medicare Data.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lam CJK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7868036 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The incidence and prevalence of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are continually increasing. While it is known that NET symptoms often predate diagnosis, their prevalence and impact on resource utilization and costs are largely unknown. We identified 9,319 elderly patients diagnosed with NETs between 1/2003 and 12/2011 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare. We examined the patients' conditions potentially associated with NET, resource utilization and costs during the year before diagnosis. We found that NET patients were more likely to have diagnoses of hypertension (63.8% vs. 53.3%), abdominal pain (22.2% vs. 7.6%), heart failure (11.7% vs. 8.0%), diarrhea (5.8% vs. 1.8%), peripheral edema (5.4% vs. 3.8%) and irritable bowel syndrome (1.2% vs. 0.5%) compared to the non-cancer control group. They also had much higher resource utilization including number of outpatient visits (mean: 22.1 vs. 17.2), percentage with ER visits (20.9% vs. 11.6%), and hospitalizations (28.4% vs. 17.0%). Similarly, NET patients incurred significantly higher total (mean: $14602 vs. $9464), outpatient (mean: $5987 vs. $4253), and inpatient costs (mean: $8615 vs. $5211). This first population-based study on the pre-diagnosis symptoms and healthcare utilization found that NET patients were more likely to have certain conditions and incur higher resource utilizations and costs.
| S-EPMC6238007 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries collect information on first-course treatment, including surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and hormone therapy. However, the SEER program does not release data on chemotherapy or hormone therapy due to uncertainties regarding data completeness. Activities are ongoing to investigate the opportunity to supplement SEER treatment data with other data sources.MethodsUsing the linked SEER-Medicare data, we examined the validity of the SEER data to identify receipt of chemotherapy and radiation therapy among those aged 65 and older diagnosed from 2000 to 2006 with bladder, female breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian, pancreas, or prostate cancer and hormone therapy among men diagnosed with prostate cancer at age 65 or older. Treatment collected by SEER was compared with treatment as determined by Medicare claims, using Medicare claims as the gold standard. The ?, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were calculated for the receipt of each treatment modality.ResultsThe overall sensitivity of SEER data to identify chemotherapy, radiation, and hormone therapy receipt was moderate (68%, 80%, and 69%, respectively) and varied by cancer site, stage, and patient characteristics. The overall positive predictive value was high (>85%) for all treatment types and cancer sites except chemotherapy for prostate cancer.ConclusionsSEER data should not generally be used for comparisons of treated and untreated individuals or to estimate the proportion of treated individuals in the population. Augmenting SEER data with other data sources will provide the most accurate treatment information.
| S-EPMC4981219 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsBiliary tract cancer (BTC) is a rare, lethal, heterogeneous group of cancers often diagnosed at an advanced stage. While gemcitabine plus cisplatin is the standard of care for first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic BTC, no globally accepted standard of care currently exists for second-line treatment of BTC following chemotherapy. However, the treatment landscape is evolving with approvals for therapies targeting actionable mutations. This study aimed to characterize treatment patterns and survival in patients with locally advanced or metastatic BTC.MethodsPatients with advanced or metastatic BTC in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare database between 2010 and 2015 (N = 2063) were included; patients with nonprimary BTC were excluded. Patient and clinical characteristics, line and type of therapy, and overall survival of patients were analyzed.ResultsOnly 45.5% (n = 938) of patients initiated systemic therapy within 90 days of diagnosis. The most common event following diagnosis was initiation of first-line therapy, and the most common event following first-line treatment was death. Median survival ranged from 5.0 months for patients receiving second-line fluoropyrimidine to 9.7 months for patients receiving second-line gemcitabine. Duration of therapy ranged from 0.7 months for patients receiving second-line fluoropyrimidine to 3.7 months for patients receiving first-line gemcitabine plus cisplatin therapy.ConclusionOverall survival from diagnosis was poor and influenced by age, sex, stage, mobility limitations, comorbidity burden, poverty, and previous cancer. Treatment patterns varied for patients who progressed following first-line therapy, as there was no consensus second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic BTC without clinically targetable mutations.
| S-EPMC11307571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionBicalutamide (BIC), a non-steroidal anti-androgen, is FDA-indicated for use in combination with a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analog for treatment of Stage D2 metastatic carcinoma of the prostate. Lack of consensus exists regarding the clinical benefit of BIC use, either alone or combined use of BIC with an LHRH analog or antagonist (combined androgen blockade or CAB), versus treatment with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone.MethodsThe SEER-Medicare database was used to identify prostate cancer patients aged ≥ 66 years diagnosed between 2007 and 2011 and who filled at least one prescription for BIC. Duration of BIC treatment was assessed in relation to ADT use; either alone (monotherapy), as part of CAB only, and as part of CAB followed by monotherapy. Additionally, we assessed use of BIC during or outside a potential testosterone flare prevention period (initiation within 2 months of an LHRH agonist).ResultsA total of 7521 prostate cancer patients who filled a prescription for BIC were identified. Eighteen percent of the cohort used BIC alone, over half the patients (54%) used BIC as part of CAB and 27% used BIC as part of CAB followed by monotherapy. Among men treated with BIC as part of CAB, 58% received BIC only within the potential flare period.ConclusionsAlthough there is no FDA indication for BIC use as monotherapy, > 44% of patients in this study used BIC alone or as part of CAB followed by monotherapy. Further research is necessary to understand the outcomes of BIC utilization in these settings, particularly compared with newer second-generation anti-androgens.FundingMedivation LLC, a Pfizer company, and Astellas, Pharma, Inc.
| S-EPMC6133134 | biostudies-literature
Project description:United States clinical practice guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer recommend use of medications impacted by genetic variants but do not recommend testing. We analyzed real-world treatment using a cancer registry and claims dataset to explore pharmacogenomic (PGx) medication treatment patterns and characterize exposure. In a cohort of 6957 patients, most (86.9%) were exposed to at least one chemotherapy medication with PGx guidelines. In a cohort of 2223 patients with retail pharmacy claims available, most (79.2%) were treated with at least one non-chemotherapy (79.2%) medication with PGx guidelines. PGx-associated chemotherapy exposure was associated with age, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and rurality. PGx-associated non-chemotherapy exposure was associated with medication use and comorbidities. The potential impact of PGx testing is large and policies aimed at increasing PGx testing at diagnosis may impact treatment decisions for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer as most patients are exposed to medications with pharmacogenomics implications during treatment.
| S-EPMC9156546 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Management of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer is among the most highly contested areas in thoracic oncology. In this population, a history of prior cancer frequently results in exclusion from clinical trials and may influence therapeutic decisions. We therefore determined prevalence and prognostic impact of prior cancer among these patients.We identified patients>65years of age diagnosed 1992-2009 with locally advanced lung cancer in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked dataset. We characterized prior cancer by prevalence, type, stage, and timing. We compared all-cause and lung cancer-specific survival between patients with and without prior cancer using propensity score-adjusted Cox regression.51,542 locally advanced lung cancer patients were included; 15.8% had a history of prior cancer. Prostate (25%), gastrointestinal (17%), breast (16%), and other genitourinary (15%) were the most common types of prior cancer, and 76% percent of prior cancers were localized or in situ stage. Approximately half (54%) of prior cancers were diagnosed within 5 years of the index lung cancer date. Patients with prior cancer had similar (propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99; P=0.005) and improved lung cancer-specific (HR 0.84; 95% CI, 0.81-0.86; P<0.001) survival compared to patients with no prior cancer.For patients with locally advanced lung cancer, prior cancer does not adversely impact clinical outcomes. Patients with locally advanced lung cancer and a history of prior cancer should not be excluded from clinical trials, and should be offered aggressive, potentially curative therapies if otherwise appropriate.
| S-EPMC4939247 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:It is unclear whether Medicare data can be used to identify type and degree of collaboration between primary care providers (PCPs) [medical doctors (MDs), nurse practitioners, and physician assistants] in a team care model. METHODS:We surveyed 63 primary care practices in Texas and linked the survey results to 2015 100% Medicare data. We identified PCP dyads of 2 providers in Medicare data and compared the results to those from our survey. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of dyads in Medicare data at different threshold numbers of shared patients were reported. We also identified PCPs who work in the same practice by Social Network Analysis (SNA) of Medicare data and compared the results to the surveys. RESULTS:With a cutoff of sharing at least 30 patients, the sensitivity of identifying dyads was 27.8%, specificity was 91.7%, and PPV 72.2%. The PPV was higher for MD-nurse practitioner/physician assistant pairs (84.4%) than for MD-MD pairs (61.5%). At the same cutoff, 90% of PCPs identified in a practice from the survey were also identified by SNA in the corresponding practice. In 5 of 8 surveyed practices with at least 3 PCPs, about ?20% PCPs identified in the practices by SNA of Medicare data were not identified in the survey. CONCLUSIONS:Medicare data can be used to identify shared care with low sensitivity and high PPV. Community discovery from Medicare data provided good agreement in identifying members of practices. Adapting network analyses in different contexts needs more validation studies.
| S-EPMC6791761 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrescribing drugs outside of the label indication is legal and may reflect standard practice; however, some off-label use may be inappropriate. This study measured the prevalence and safety of off-label use both in accordance with practice guidelines and inconsistent with practice guidelines in older patients with breast cancer.Patients and methodsThe SEER-Medicare data set was used to identify women diagnosed with breast cancer. Intravenous chemotherapy was identified using Medicare claims and classified as either on-label, off-label but included in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Breast Cancer ("off-label/supported"), or off-label and not included in the NCCN Guidelines ("off-label/unsupported"). Hospitalization/emergency department (ED) admission rates were compared.ResultsA total of 13,347 women were treated with 16,127 regimens (12% of women switched regimen); 64% of regimens were off-label/supported, 25% were on-label, and 11% were off-label/unsupported, and hospitalization/ED admission occurred in 27%, 25%, and 32% of regimens, respectively (P<.0001). Drugs never included in the NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer accounted for 19% of off-label/unsupported use (1% of total use).ConclusionsOff-label use without scientific support was not common, whereas 64% of use was off-label/supported, reflecting the fact that widely accepted indications are often not tested in registration trials. Off-label/supported use will likely increase as more drugs are expected to have activity across cancer sites, and therefore understanding the implications of such use is critical.
| S-EPMC4827612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAbnormal results in common blood tests may occur several months before lung cancer (LC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis. Identifying early blood markers of cancer and distinct blood test signatures could support earlier diagnosis in general practice.MethodsUsing linked Australian primary care and hospital cancer registry data, we conducted a cohort study of 855 LC and 399 CRC patients diagnosed between 2001 and 2021. Requests and results from general practice blood tests (six acute phase reactants [APR] and six red blood cell indices [RBCI]) were examined in the 2 years before cancer diagnosis. Poisson regression models were used to estimate monthly incidence rates and examine pre-diagnostic trends in blood test use and abnormal results prior to cancer diagnosis, comparing patterns in LC and CRC patients.ResultsGeneral practice blood test requests increase from 7 months before CRC and 6 months before LC diagnosis. Abnormalities in many APR and RBCI tests increase several months before cancer diagnosis, often occur prior to or in the absence of anaemia (in 51% of CRC and 81% of LC patients with abnormalities), and are different in LC and CRC patients.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates an increase in diagnostic activity in Australian general practice several months before LC and CRC diagnosis, indicating potential opportunities for earlier diagnosis. It identifies blood test abnormalities and distinct signatures that are early markers of LC and CRC. If combined with other pre-diagnostic information, these blood tests have potential to support GPs in prioritising patients for cancer investigation of different sites to expedite diagnosis.
| S-EPMC11245636 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The landscape of treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) has significantly changed over the last decade due to novel agents that have shown superiority in efficacy such as proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) over traditional therapies. However, the real-world utilization of these new agents has not been studied well. This study evaluated year-to-year changes in treatment choices in a cohort of patients aged 66 or older in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry linked with Medicare claims (SEER-Medicare) data who were diagnosed with MM between 2007 and 2011. We identified 2477 symptomatic newly diagnosed patients who were followed for 6 months or more postdiagnosis and treated with systemic therapies but not with stem cell transplantation. Symptomatic patients were identified by evidence of hypercalcemia, renal failure, anemia, or bone lesions (CRAB criteria). The minimum follow-up was imposed to ensure sufficient data to characterize treatment. Our analysis found that the proportion of treated patients increased from 75% in the 2007 cohort to 79% in the 2011 cohort. The share of PI-based regimens including PI plus alkylating agents, PI plus IMiD, and PI-only increased from 9% to 21%, 3% to 11%, and 16% to 22%, respectively, between 2007 and 2011. These findings translate to the share of PI-based regimens having increased from 28% to 55% and that of IMiDs-based regimens (excluding PI plus IMiD) having decreased from 43% to 27%. In conclusion, while the usage of PIs among elderly MM patients increased significantly replacing IMiD-based regimens (with or without alkylating agents but not with PI) between 2007 and 2011, this significant shift did not increase the proportion of treated patients.
| S-EPMC6970041 | biostudies-literature