Measurement of skeletal related events in SEER-Medicare: a comparison of claims-based methods

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Arif Hussain²  Arun Balakumaran¹  Jorge Arellano¹  Yi Qian¹  Young Kwok²  C. Daniel Mullins³  Corinne Woods⁴  Eberechukwu Onukwugha³  Abdalla Aly³ 

[1] Amgen Inc., 1 Amgen Center Drive, Thousand Oaks 91320, CA, USA;University of Maryland Medical Center, 22 S. Greene Street, Baltimore 21201, MD, USA;Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland, School of Pharmacy, Saratoga Building, 12th Floor, 220 Arch Street, Baltimore 21201, MD, USA;Pharmaceutical Research Computing, University of Maryland, School of Pharmacy, Saratoga Building, 12th Floor, 220 Arch Street, Baltimore 21201, MD, USA

关键词: Metastatic prostate cancer;    Measurement;    SEER-Medicare;    Administrative claims;    Skeletal related events;   

Others  :  1222416
DOI  :  10.1186/s12874-015-0047-5

 received in 2014-07-15, accepted in 2015-07-10,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Skeletal related events (SREs) are common in men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC). Various methods have been used to identify SREs from claims data. The objective of this study was to provide a framework for measuring SREs from claims and compare SRE prevalence and cumulative incidence estimates based on alternative approaches in men with mPC.

Methods

Several claims-based approaches for identifying SREs were developed and applied to data for men aged [greater than or equal to] 66 years newly diagnosed with mPC between 2000 and 2009 in the SEER-Medicare datasets and followed through 2010 or until censoring. Post-diagnosis SREs were identified using claims that indicated spinal cord compression (SCC), pathologic fracture (PF), surgery to bone (BS), or radiation (suggestive of bone palliative radiation, RAD). To measure SRE prevalence, two SRE definitions were created: ‘base case’ (most commonly used in the literature) and ‘alternative’ in which different claims were used to identify each type of SRE. To measure cumulative incidence, we used the ‘base case’ definition and applied three periods in which claims were clustered to episodes: 14-, 21-, and 28-day windows.

Results

Among 8997 mPC patients, 46 % experienced an SRE according to the ‘base case’ definition and 43 % patients experienced an SRE according to the ‘alternative’ definition. Varying the code definition from ‘base case’ to ‘alternative’ resulted in an 8 % increase in the overall SRE prevalence. Using the 21-day window, a total of 12,930 SRE episodes were observed during follow up. Varying the window length from 21 to 28 days resulted in an 8 % decrease in SRE cumulative incidence (RAD: 10 %, PF: 8 %, SCC: 6 %, BS: 0.2 %).

Conclusions

SRE prevalence was affected by the codes used, with PF being most impacted. The overall SRE cumulative incidence was affected by the window length used, with RAD being most affected. These results underscore the importance of the baseline definitions used to study claims data when attempting to understand relevant clinical events such as SREs in the real world setting.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Aly et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Suva LJ, Washam C, Nicholas RW, Griffin RJ. Bone metastasis: mechanisms and therapeutic opportunities. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2011; 7(4):208-18.
• [2]Roodman GD. Mechanisms of bone metastasis. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350(16):1655-64.
• [3]Coleman RE. Clinical features of metastatic bone disease and risk of skeletal morbidity. Clin Cancer Res. 2006; 12(20 Pt 2):6243s-9.
• [4]DePuy V, Anstrom KJ, Castel LD, Schulman KA, Weinfurt KP, Saad F. Effects of skeletal morbidities on longitudinal patient-reported outcomes and survival in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2007; 15(7):869-76.
• [5]Zhu M, Liang R, Pan LH, Huang B, Qian W, Zhong JH, Zheng WW, Li CL. Zoledronate for metastatic bone disease and pain: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Pain Med. 2013; 14(2):257-64.
• [6]Lipton A, Fizazi K, Stopeck AT, Henry DH, Brown JE, Yardley DA, Richardson GE, Siena S, Maroto P, Clemens M, Bilynskyy B, Charu V, Beuzeboc P, Rader M, Viniegra M, Saad F, Ke C, Braun A, Jun S. Superiority of denosumab to zoledronic acid for prevention of skeletal-related events: a combined analysis of 3 pivotal, randomised, phase 3 trials. Eur J Cancer. 2012; 48(16):3082-92.
• [7]Weinfurt KP, Li Y, Castel LD, Saad F, Timbie JW, Glendenning GA, Schulman KA. The significance of skeletal-related events for the health-related quality of life of patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Ann Oncol. 2005; 16(4):579-84.
• [8]Anonymous Guidance for Industry: Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics. Silver Spring, Maryland, USA: Food and Drug Administration (FDA); 2007.
• [9]D’Amico AV. US Food and Drug Administration approval of drugs for the treatment of prostate cancer: a new era has begun. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(4):362-4.
• [10]Felix J, Andreozzi V, Soares M, Borrego P, Gervasio H, Moreira A, Costa L, Marcelo F, Peralta F, Furtado I, Pina F, Albuquerque C, Santos A, Passos-Coelho JL. Hospital resource utilization and treatment cost of skeletal-related events in patients with metastatic breast or prostate cancer: estimation for the Portuguese National Health System. Value Health. 2011; 14(4):499-505.
• [11]Hagiwara M, Delea TE, Saville MW, Chung K. Healthcare utilization and costs associated with skeletal-related events in prostate cancer patients with bone metastases. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2013; 16(1):23-7.
• [12]Hess G, Barlev A, Chung K, Hill JW, Fonseca E. Cost of palliative radiation to the bone for patients with bone metastases secondary to breast or prostate cancer. Radiat Oncol. 2012; 7:168. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Lage MJ, Barber BL, Harrison DJ, Jun S. The cost of treating skeletal-related events in patients with prostate cancer. Am J Manag Care. 2008; 14(5):317-22.
• [14]Velde NV, Wu EQ, Guo A, Lu M, Yu AP, Sharma H, Liu J, Fan CP, Shi L. The benefits of timely intervention with zoledronic acid in patients with metastatic prostate cancer to bones: a retrospective study of the US Veterans Affairs population. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2011; 14(1):79-84.
• [15]Barlev A, Song X, Ivanov B, Setty V, Chung K. Payer costs for inpatient treatment of pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, and spinal cord compression among patients with multiple myeloma or bone metastasis secondary to prostate or breast cancer. J Manag Care Pharm. 2010; 16(9):693-702.
• [16]Jayasekera J, Onukwugha E, Bikov K, Mullins CD, Seal B, Hussain A. The economic burden of skeletal-related events among elderly men with metastatic prostate cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014; 32(2):173-91.
• [17]Norgaard M, Jensen AO, Jacobsen JB, Cetin K, Fryzek JP, Sorensen HT. Skeletal related events, bone metastasis and survival of prostate cancer: a population based cohort study in Denmark (1999 to 2007). J Urol. 2010; 184(1):162-7.
• [18]Sathiakumar N, Delzell E, Morrisey MA, Falkson C, Yong M, Chia V, Blackburn J, Arora T, Kilgore ML. Mortality following bone metastasis and skeletal-related events among men with prostate cancer: a population-based analysis of US Medicare beneficiaries, 1999–2006. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2011; 14(2):177-83.
• [19]Spence MM, Hui RL, Chan J, Schottinger JE. Risk of skeletal-related events in patients with advanced prostate cancer treated with pamidronate or zoledronic acid. Ann Pharmacother. 2010; 44(9):1384-8.
• [20]Lipton A, Colombo-Berra A, Bukowski RM, Rosen L, Zheng M, Urbanowitz G. Skeletal complications in patients with bone metastases from renal cell carcinoma and therapeutic benefits of zoledronic acid. Clin Cancer Res. 2004; 10(18 Pt 2):6397S-403.
• [21]Rosen LS, Gordon D, Tchekmedyian S, Yanagihara R, Hirsh V, Krzakowski M, Pawlicki M, de Souza P, Zheng M, Urbanowitz G, Reitsma D, Seaman JJ. Zoledronic acid versus placebo in the treatment of skeletal metastases in patients with lung cancer and other solid tumors: a phase III, double-blind, randomized trial—the Zoledronic Acid Lung Cancer and Other Solid Tumors Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21(16):3150-7.
• [22]Fizazi K, Carducci M, Smith M, Damiao R, Brown J, Karsh L, Milecki P, Shore N, Rader M, Wang H, Jiang Q, Tadros S, Dansey R, Goessl C. Denosumab versus zoledronic acid for treatment of bone metastases in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomised, double-blind study. Lancet. 2011; 377(9768):813-22.
• [23]Anonymous A Profile of Older Americans: 2012. 2012.
• [24]Curtis JR, Taylor AJ, Matthews RS, Ray MN, Becker DJ, Gary LC, Kilgore ML, Morrisey MA, Saag KG, Warriner A, Delzell E. “Pathologic” fractures: should these be included in epidemiologic studies of osteoporotic fractures? Osteoporos Int. 2009; 20(11):1969-72.
• [25]Janjan N, Lutz ST, Bedwinek JM, Hartsell WF, Ng A, Pieters RS, Ratanatharathorn V, Silberstein EB, Taub RJ, Yasko AW, Rettenmaier A. Therapeutic guidelines for the treatment of bone metastasis: a report from the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria Expert Panel on Radiation Oncology. J Palliat Med. 2009; 12(5):417-26.
• [26]Jensen AO, Norgaard M, Yong M, Fryzek JP, Sorensen HT. Validity of the recorded International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition diagnoses codes of bone metastases and skeletal-related events in breast and prostate cancer patients in the Danish National Registry of Patients. Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 1:101-8.
• [27]Ahmed KA, Barney BM, Davis BJ, Park SS, Kwon ED, Olivier KR. Stereotactic body radiation therapy in the treatment of oligometastatic prostate cancer. Front Oncol. 2013; 2:215.