Validation of colorectal cancer surgery data from administrative data sources

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Marcy Winget⁴  Jonathon White³  Christopher deGara²  Charlotte King¹  Xue Li¹ 

[1] Division of Community Oncology, Cancer Care, Alberta Health Services, 1500-10123 99 Street, T5J 3H1, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada;Division of Continuous Professional Learning, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, 2-590 Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405-87th Avenue NW, T6G 1C9, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada;Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, 2D, Walter C Mackenzie Health Sciences Centre, 8440 - 112 Street, T6G 2B7, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada;1500 Sun Life Place, 10123 99 Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta, T5J 3H1, Canada

关键词: Negative predictive value;    Positive predictive value;    Specificity;    Sensitivity;    Administrative data;    Data validation;    Surgery;    Colorectal cancer;   

Others  :  1136560
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-12-97

 received in 2011-12-23, accepted in 2012-07-11,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Surgery is the primary treatment for colorectal cancer for both curative and palliative intent. Availability of high quality surgery data is essential for assessing many aspects of the quality of colorectal cancer care. The objective of this study was to determine the quality of different administrative data sources in identifying surgery for colorectal cancer with respect to completeness and accuracy.

Methods

All residents in Alberta, Canada who were diagnosed with invasive colorectal cancer in years 2000-2005 were identified from the Alberta Cancer Registry and included in the study. Surgery data for these patients were obtained from the Cancer Registry (which collects the date of surgery for which the primary tumor was removed) and compared to surgery data obtained from two different administrative data sources: Physician Billing and Hospital Inpatient data. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and observed agreement were calculated compared to the Cancer Registry data.

Results

The Physician Billing data alone or combined with Hospital Inpatient data demonstrated equally high sensitivity (97% for both) and observed agreement with the Cancer Registry data (93% for both) for identifying surgeries. The Hospital Inpatient data, however, had the highest specificity (80%). The positive predictive value varied by disease stage and across data sources for stage IV (99% for stages I-III and 83-89% for stage IV), the specificity is better for colon cancer surgeries (72-85%) than for rectal cancer surgeries (60-73%); validation measures did not vary over time.

Conclusion

Physician Billing data identify the colorectal cancer surgery more completely than Hospital Inpatient data although both sources have a high level of completeness.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Li et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Mirza MS, Longman RJ, Farrokhyar F, Sheffield JP, Kennedy RH: Long-term outcomes for laparoscopic versus open resection of nonmetastatic colorectal cancer. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2008, 18:679-685.
• [2]Kahnamoui K, Cadeddu M, Farrokhyar F, Anvari M: Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer: a systematic review. Can J Surg 2007, 50:48-57.
• [3]Nenshi R, Baxter N, Kennedy E, Schultz SE, Gunraj N, Wilton AS, Urbach DR, Simunovic M: Surgery for Colorectal Cancer. In Cancer Surgery in Ontario: ICES Atlas. Edited by Urbach DR, Simunovic M, Schultz SE. Toronto, ON: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; 2008.
• [4]Lavery IC, Lopez-Kostner F, Pelley RJ, Fine RM: Treatment of colon and rectal cancer. Surg Clin North Am 2000, 80:535-569. ix
• [5]Turner D, Hildebrand KJ, Fradette K, Latosinsky S: Same question, different data source, different answers? Data source agreement for surgical procedures on women with breast cancer. Healthc Policy 2007, 3:46-54.
• [6]Lipscomb J, Gillespie TW: State-level cancer quality assessment and research: building and sustaining the data infrastructure. Cancer J 2011, 17:246-256.
• [7]Beatty JD, Adachi M, Bonham C, Atwood M, Potts MS, Hafterson JL, Aye RW: Utilization of cancer registry data for monitoring quality of care. Am J Surg 2011, 201:645-649.
• [8]Du X, Freeman JL, Warren JL, Nattinger AB, Zhang D, Goodwin JS: Accuracy and completeness of Medicare claims data for surgical treatment of breast cancer. Med Care 2000, 38:719-727.
• [9]Meguerditchian AN, Stewart A, Roistacher J, Watroba N, Cropp M, Edge SB: Claims data linked to hospital registry data enhance evaluation of the quality of care of breast cancer. J Surg Oncol 2010, 101:593-599.
• [10]Abraham NS, Cohen DC, Rivers B, Richardson P: Validation of administrative data used for the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal events following nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug prescription. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006, 24:299-306.
• [11]Fritz A, Percy C, Jack A, Shanmugaratnam K, Sobin L, Parkin DM, Whelan S (Eds): International Classification of Diseases for Oncology. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2000.
• [12]Collaborative Staging Task Force of the American Joint Committee on Cancer: Collaborative Staging Manual and Coding Instructions, version 01.04.00. NIH Publication Number 04-5496. Incorporates updates through September 8, 2006. Jointly published by American Joint Committee on Cancer (Chicago, IL) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Bethesda, MD), Chicago, IL; 2004.
• [13]Tucker TC, Howe HL, Weir HK: Certification for population-based cancer registries. J Reg Mgmt 1999, 26:24-27.
• [14]Gwet K: Inter-rater reliability: dependency on trait prevalence and marginal homogeneity. Volume 2nd edition. 2002.
• [15]Viera AJ, Garrett JM: Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 2005, 37:360-363.
• [16]Soeken KL, Prescott PA: Issues in the use of kappa to estimate reliability. Med Care 1986, 24:733-741.
• [17]Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV: High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990, 43:543-549.
• [18]Cicchetti DV, Feinstein AR: High agreement but low kappa: II resolving the paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990, 43:551-558.
• [19]Pinfold SP, Goel V, Sawka C: Quality of hospital discharge and physician data for type of breast cancer surgery. Med Care 2000, 38:99-107.
• [20]Kahn LH, Blustein J, Arons RR, Yee R, Shea S: The validity of hospital administrative data in monitoring variations in breast cancer surgery. Am J Public Health 1996, 86:243-245.
• [21]Cooper GS, Virnig B, Klabunde CN, Schussler N, Freeman J, Warren JL: Use of SEER-Medicare data for measuring cancer surgery. Med Care 2002, 40:IV-8.