Ascertaining invasive breast cancer cases; the validity of administrative and self-reported data sources in Australia

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Elizabeth E Roughead⁶  Kris Rogers¹  Max Bulsara³  C D’Arcy J Holman⁵  Christobel Saunders²  David B Preen⁴  Anna Kemp⁷ 

[1] Prevention Research Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health, University Fisher Road, Sydney, NSW, 2206, Australia;School of Surgery, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia;Institute of Health and Rehabilitation Research, University of Notre Dame, PO Box 1225, Fremantle, WA, 6959, Australia;Centre for Health Services Research, School of Population Health, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia;School of Population Health, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia;Quality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia;Illawarra Health and Medical Research Institute, Building 32, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia

关键词: Self-report;    Anastrazole;    Tamoxifen;    Hospital diagnosis;    Radiotherapy;    Mastectomy;    Lumpectomy;    Positive predictive value;    Specificity;    Sensitivity;    45 and up study;   

Others  :  1126199
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-13-17

 received in 2012-10-17, accepted in 2013-02-01,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Statutory State-based cancer registries are considered the ‘gold standard’ for researchers identifying cancer cases in Australia, but research using self-report or administrative health datasets (e.g. hospital records) may not have linkage to a Cancer Registry and need to identify cases. This study investigated the validity of administrative and self-reported data compared with records in a State-wide Cancer Registry in identifying invasive breast cancer cases.

Methods

Cases of invasive breast cancer recorded on the New South Wales (NSW) Cancer Registry between July 2004 and December 2008 (the study period) were identified for women in the 45 and Up Study. Registry cases were separately compared with suspected cases ascertained from: i) administrative hospital separations records; ii) outpatient medical service claims; iii) prescription medicines claims; and iv) the 45 and Up Study baseline survey. Ascertainment flags included diagnosis codes, surgeries (e.g. lumpectomy), services (e.g. radiotherapy), and medicines used for breast cancer, as well as self-reported diagnosis. Positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity and specificity were calculated for flags within individual datasets, and for combinations of flags across multiple datasets.

Results

Of 143,010 women in the 45 and Up Study, 2039 (1.4%) had an invasive breast tumour recorded on the NSW Cancer Registry during the study period. All of the breast cancer flags examined had high specificity (>97.5%). Of the flags from individual datasets, hospital-derived ‘lumpectomy and diagnosis of invasive breast cancer’ and ‘(lumpectomy or mastectomy) and diagnosis of invasive breast cancer’ had the greatest PPV (89% and 88%, respectively); the later having greater sensitivity (59% and 82%, respectively). The flag with the highest sensitivity and PPV ≥ 85% was 'diagnosis of invasive breast cancer' (both 86%). Self-reported breast cancer diagnosis had a PPV of 50% and sensitivity of 85%, and breast radiotherapy had a PPV of 73% and a sensitivity of 58% compared with Cancer Registry records. The combination of flags with the greatest PPV and sensitivity was ‘(lumpectomy or mastectomy) and (diagnosis of invasive breast cancer or breast radiotherapy)’ (PPV and sensitivity 83%).

Conclusions

In the absence of Cancer Registry data, administrative and self-reported data can be used to accurately identify cases of invasive breast cancer for sample identification, removing cases from a sample, or risk adjustment. Invasive breast cancer can be accurately identified using hospital-derived diagnosis alone or in combination with surgeries and breast radiotherapy.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Kemp et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Fritschi L, Dye SA, Katris P: Validity of melanoma diagnosis in a community-based screening program. Am J Epidemiol 2006, 164:385-390.
• [2]Stavrou E, Vajdic C, Loxton D, Pearson SA: The validity of self-reported cancer diagnoses and factors associated with accurate reporting in a cohort of older Australian women. Cancer Epidemiol 2011, 35:75-80.
• [3]Stavrou EP, Lu CY, Buckley N, Pearson S: The role of comorbidities on the uptake of systemic treatment and 3-year survival in older cancer patients. Ann Oncol 2012, 23:2422-2428.
• [4]Accessing our data. http://www.cancerinstitute.org.au/data-and-statistics/accessing-our-data webcite
• [5]Cui X, Werk C, Twilley L: Learnings from anonymous data linkage acorss government sectors. Perth, Australia: Presented at the International Data Linkage Conference 2012; 2012.
• [6]Stone CA, Ramsden CA, Howard JA, Roberts M, Halliday JH: From data linkage to policy and back again: A preliminary report on the linkage of neonatal data in Victoria. Sydney, Australia: Symposium on Health Data Linkage; 2000:209-211.
• [7]Goddard M, Mannion R, Smith P: Enhancing performance in health care: a theoretical perspective on agency and the role of information. Health Econ 2000, 9:95-107.
• [8]Bradley CJ, Penberthy L, Devers KJ, Holden DJ: Health services research and data linkages: issues, methods, and directions for the future. Health Serv Res 2010, 45:1468-1488.
• [9]Gill L, Goldacre M: English national record linkage of hospital episode statistics and death registration records. Oxford University, Oxford: Unit of Health-Care Epidemiology; 2003.
• [10]45 and Up Study Collaborators: Cohort profile: the 45 and up study. Int J Epidemiol 2008, 37:941-947.
• [11]Information for researchers: the 45 and Up Study. http://www.45andup.org.au/applyingtousethestudyresource.aspx webcite
• [12]Rogers K, Kemp A, McLachlan A, Blyth F: Patterns of prescription opioid use for non-cancer pain in Australia: findings from the New South Wales 45 and Up Study. Perth, Australia: International Data Linkage Conference 2012; 2012.
• [13]Goldsbury D, Harris MF, Pascoe S, Olver I, Barton M, Spigelman A, O’Connell D: Socio-demographic and other patient characteristics associated with time between colonoscopy and surgery, and choice of treatment centre for colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open 2012.
• [14]Douglas K, Yen L, Korda R, Kljakovic M, Glasgow N: Chronic disease management items in general practice: a population-based study of variation in claims by claimant characteristics. Med J Aust 2011, 195:198-202.
• [15]Cancer Institute of New South Wales Sydney: Cancer Institute of NSW; http://www.cancerinstitute.org.au/cancer_inst/publications/journal_articles.html#2009 webcite
• [16]NSW Central Cancer Registry. http://www.cancerinstitute.org.au/cancer_inst/statistics/registry.html webcite
• [17]National Centre for Classification in Health: The international statistical classification of diseases and related health problems, 10th revision, Australian modification (ICD-10-AM). Sydney: National Centre for Classification in Health; 2006.
• [18]Information for researchers. http://www.cherel.org.au webcite
• [19]Medicare. http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/medicare/medicare webcite
• [20]About the PBS. http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/about-the-pbs webcite
• [21]Schedule of Medicare Benefits, 1 July 2012. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/mbsonline/publishing.nsf/Content/Medicare-Benefits-Schedule-MBS-1 webcite
• [22]PBS for health professionals. http://www.pbs.gov.au/html/healthpro/home webcite
• [23]Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits, 1 July 2012. http://www.pbs.gov.au/pbs/home webcite
• [24]Altman DG, Bland JM: Statistics notes: diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity and specificity. BMJ 1994, 308:1552.
• [25]Altman DG, Bland JM: Statistics notes: diagnostic tests 2: predictive values. BMJ 1994, 309:102.
• [26]Yuen E, Louis D, Cisbani L, Rabinowitz C, De Palma R, Maio V, Leoni M, Grilli R: Using administrative data to identify and stage breast cancer cases: implications for assessing quality of care. Tumori 2011, 97:428-435.
• [27]McGeechan K, Kricker A, Armstrong B, Stubbs J: Evaluation of linked cancer registry and hospital records of breast cancer. Aust N Z J Public Health 1998, 22:765-770.
• [28]Nattinger AB, Laud PW, Bajorunaite R, Sparapani RA, Freeman JL: An algorithm for the use of medicare claims data to identify women with incident breast cancer. Health Serv Res 2004, 39:1733-1749.
• [29]Freeman JL, Zhang D, Freeman DH Jr, Goodwin JS: An approach to identifying incident breast cancer cases using medicare claims data. J Clin Epidemiol 2000, 53:605-614.
• [30]Bergmann MM, Byers T, Freedman DS, Mokdad A: Validity of self-reported diagnoses leading to hospitalization: a comparison of self-reports with hospital records in a prospective study of american adults. Am J Epidemiol 1998, 147:969-977.
• [31]Desai M, Bruce ML, Desai R, Druss B: Validity of self-reported cancer history: a comparison of health interview data and cancer registry records. Am J Epidemiol 2001, 153:299-306.
• [32]Abraham L, Geller BM, Yankaskasc B, Bowlesa E, Karlinerd L, Tapline T, Migliorettia D: Accuracy of self-reported breast cancer among women undergoing mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009, 118:583-592.