Data for cancer comparative effectiveness research: Past, present, and future potential

Cancer

Volumn 118, Issue 21, 2012, Pages 5186-5197

  Meyer, Anne Marie ^a,b   Carpenter, William R ^a,b   Abernethy, Amy P ^c,d   Stürmer, Til ^a,b   Kosorok, Michael R ^a  

^a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d DUKE CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

comparative effectiveness research; data standardization; Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions About Effectiveness (DEcIDE); research methods; retrospective data

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER SURVIVOR; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONFIDENTIALITY; COOPERATION; DATA ANALYSIS; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL EXPERT; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATENT; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRIVACY; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SAMPLING; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VALIDATION STUDY;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; COMPUTER SECURITY; DATA COLLECTION; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84867893753     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.27552     Document Type: Review

References (66)

1. Clancy CM, Slutsky JR,. Commentary: a progress report on AHRQ's Effective Health Care Program (AHRQ update) [serial online]. Health Serv Res. 2007; 42: xi.
2. Smith S,. Preface. Med Care. 2007; 45 (10 suppl 2): S1-S2.
3. Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Research on the Comparative Effectiveness of Medical Treatments: Issues and Options for an Expanded Federal Role. Publication no. 2975. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office; 2007.
4. Maclure M,. Explaining pragmatic trials to pragmatic policymakers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 476-478.
5. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM,. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003; 290: 624-632.
6. Institute of Medicine. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009.
7. Sturmer T, Funk MJ, Poole C, Brookhart MA,. Nonexperimental comparative effectiveness research using linked healthcare databases. Epidemiology. 2011; 22: 298-301.
8. Sox HC,. Defining comparative effectiveness research: the importance of getting it right. Med Care. 2010; 48 (6 suppl): S7-S8.
9. AHRQ. About the DEcIDE Network. Effective Health Care Program 2011; http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/who-is-involved-in-the- effective-health-care-program1/about-the-decide-network/. Accessed March 17, 2012.
10. Aday L, Begley C, Lairson D, Balkrishnan R,. Evaluating the Healthcare System: Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Equity. 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press; 2004.
11. McDowell I,. Measuring Health. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
12. Lipscomb J, Gotay C, Snyder C,. Outcomes Assessment in Cancer: Measures, Methods, and Applications. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
13. National Cancer Policy Board of the Institute of Medicine. Ensuring Quality Cancer Care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1999.
14. National Cancer Policy Board of the Institute of Medicine. Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2005.
15. National Cancer Policy Board of the Institute of Medicine. Enhancing Data Systems to Improve the Quality of Cancer Care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2000.
16. Zapka JG, Taplin SH, Solberg LI, Manos MM,. A framework for improving the quality of cancer care: the case of breast and cervical cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003; 12: 4-13.
17. Shah NR, Stewart WF,. Clinical effectiveness: leadership in comparative effectiveness and translational research.: the 15th Annual HMO Research Network Conference, April 26-29, 2009, Danville, Pennsylvania. Clin Med Res. 2010; 8: 28-29.
18. Aiello Bowles EJ, Tuzzio L, Ritzwoller DP, et al. Accuracy and complexities of using automated clinical data for capturing chemotherapy administrations: implications for future research. Med Care. 2009; 47: 1091-1097.
19. Sox HC, Greenfield S,. Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151: 203-205.
20. Hoffman A, Pearson SD,. Marginal medicine: targeting comparative effectiveness research to reduce waste. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009; 28: w710-S718.
21. Etheredge LM,. Medicare's future: cancer care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009; 28: 148-159.
22. Donabedian A,. Evaluating the quality of medical care. 1966. Millbank Q. 2005; 83: 691-729.
23. Mandelblatt JS, Ganz PA, Kahn KL,. Proposed agenda for the measurement of quality-of-care outcomes in oncology practice. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17: 2614-2622.
24. Brookhart MA, Sturmer T, Glynn RJ, Rassen J, Schneeweiss S,. Confounding control in healthcare database research: challenges and potential approaches. Med Care. 2010; 48 (6 suppl): S114-S120.
25. Bloomrosen M, Detmer D,. Advancing the framework: use of health data-a report of a working conference of the American Medical Informatics Association. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008; 15: 715-722.
26. Bloomrosen M, Detmer DE,. Informatics, evidence-based care, and research; implications for national policy: a report of an American Medical Informatics Association health policy conference. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010; 17: 115-123.
27. Manion FJ, Robbins RJ, Weems WA, Crowley RS,. Security and privacy requirements for a multi-institutional cancer research data grid: an interview-based study [serial online]. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2009; 9: 31.
28. Safran C, Bloomrosen M, Hammond WE, et al. Toward a national framework for the secondary use of health data: an American Medical Informatics Association White Paper. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007; 14: 1-9.
29. Wallace PJ,. Reshaping cancer learning through the use of health information technology. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007; 26: w169-w177.
30. PatientsLikeMe. Available at: http://www.patientslikeme.com/. Accessed November 11, 2010.
31. Sturmer T, Glynn RJ, Rothman KJ, Avorn J, Schneeweiss S,. Adjustments for unmeasured confounders in pharmacoepidemiologic database studies using external information. Med Care. 2007; 45 (10 suppl 2): S158-S165.
32. Sturmer T, Schneeweiss S, Avorn J, Glynn RJ,. Adjusting effect estimates for unmeasured confounding with validation data using propensity score calibration. Am J Epidemiol. 2005; 162: 279-289.
33. Goldberg RM, Sargent DJ, Morton RF, et al. NCCTG Study N9741: leveraging learning from an NCI cooperative group phase III trial. Oncologist. 2009; 14: 970-978.
34. Abernethy AP, Etheredge LM, Ganz PA, et al. Rapid-learning system for cancer care. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 4268-4274.
35. Lievre A, Bachet JB, Boige V, et al. KRAS mutations as an independent prognostic factor in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 374-379.
36. Lievre A, Bachet JB, Le Corre D, et al. KRAS mutation status is predictive of response to cetuximab therapy in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res. 2006; 66: 3992-3995.
37. Sargent D,. What constitutes reasonable evidence of efficacy and effectiveness to guide oncology treatment decisions? Oncologist. 2010; 15 (suppl 1): 19-23.
38. Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 1179-1194.
39. Dorans NJ,. Linking scores from multiple health outcome instruments. Qual Life Res. 2007; 16: 85-94.
40. McHorney CA,. Use of item response theory to link 3 modules of functional status items from the asset and health dynamics among the oldest old study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 83: 383-394.
41. McHorney CA, Cohen AS,. Equating health status measures with item response theory illustrations with functional status items. Med Care. 2000; 38: 43-59.
42. Abernethy AP, Zafar SY, Uronis H, et al. Validation of the Patient Care Monitor (Version 2.0): a review of system assessment instrument for cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2010; 40: 545-558.
43. Abernethy AP, Ahmad A, Zafar SY, Wheeler JL, Reese JB, Lyerly HK,. Electronic patient-reported data capture as a foundation of rapid learning cancer care. Med Care. 2010; 48 (6 suppl): S32-S38.
44. Clauser SB, Ganz PA, Lipscomb J, Reeve BB,. Patient-reported outcomes assessment in cancer trials: evaluating and enhancing the payoff to decision making. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 5049-5050.
45. Lipscomb J, Reeve BB, Clauser SB, et al. Patient-reported outcomes assessment in cancer trials: taking stock, moving forward. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 5133-5140.
46. Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder CE,. Patient-reported outcomes in cancer: a review of recent research and policy initiatives. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007; 57: 278-300.
47. Carpenter WR, Peppercorn J,. Beyond toxicity: the challenge and importance of understanding the full impact of treatment decisions. Cancer. 2009; 115: 2598-2601.
48. Hassett MJ, O'Malley AJ, Keating NL,. Factors influencing changes in employment among women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Cancer. 2009; 115: 2775-2782.
49. Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, Bach PB, Riley GF,. Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population. Med Care. 2002; 40 (8 suppl): IV-3-IV-18.
50. Jutte DP, Roos LL, Brownell MD,. Administrative record linkage as a tool for public health research. Annu Rev Public Health. 2011; 32: 91-108.
51. Sturmer T, Schneeweiss S, Brookhart MA, Rothman KJ, Avorn J, Glynn RJ,. Analytic strategies to adjust confounding using exposure propensity scores and disease risk scores: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and short-term mortality in the elderly. Am J Epidemiol. 2005; 161: 891-898.
52. Sturmer T, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Avorn J, Glynn RJ,. Performance of propensity score calibration-a simulation study. Am J Epidemiol. 2007; 165: 1110-1118.
53. Holve E, Pittman P,. A First Look at the Volume and Cost of Comparative Effectiveness Research in the United States. Washington, DC: Academy Health; 2009.
54. Conway PH, VanLare JM,. Improving access to health care data: the open government strategy. JAMA. 2010; 304: 1007-1008.
55. Wagner TH, Murray C, Goldberg J, Adler JM, Abrams J,. Costs and benefits of the national cancer institute central institutional review board. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 662-666.
56. Dilts DM, Sandler AB, Cheng SK, et al. Steps and time to process clinical trials at the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 1761-1766.
57. Office for Oregon Health Policy and Research. Policy Brief: All-Payer, All-Claims Data Base. Available at: http://www.oregon.gov/OHPPR/HFB/docs/2009- Legislature-Presentations/Policy-Briefs/Policy Brief-AllPayerAllClaimsDatabase- 4.30.09.pdf?ga=t. Accessed on July 29, 2010.
58. US Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Nationwide Privacy and Security Framework for Electronic Exchange of Individually Identifiable Health Information, December 15, 2008. Available at: http://bit.ly/2DVP5p. Accessed on July 29, 2010.
59. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en-2649-34255-1815186-1-1- 1-1,00.html. Accessed June 6, 2010.
60. US Department of Health and Human Services. Health Information Technology. Meaningful Use. Available at: http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server. pt?open=512&objID=1325&parentname =Community Page&parentid= 1&mode=2. Accessed April 16, 2010.
61. North Carolina Healthcare Information and Communication Alliance. North Carolina Health Information Exchange Council (NC HIE Council) Web site. Available at: http://www.nchica.org/GetInvolved/NCHIE/intro.htm. Accessed June 2, 2010.
62. US Department of Health and Human Services: Medicare.com. What Is a Medicare Quality Improvement Organization (QIO)? Available at: https://questions.medicare.gov/app/answers/detail/a-id/1943/related/1. Accessed May 28, 2010.
63. Gladwell M,. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Company; 2000.
64. Clancy C, Collins FS,. Patient-centered outcomes research institute: the intersection of science and health care [serial online]. Sci Transl Med. 2010; 2: 37cm18.
65. Outcome Sciences. Registry of Patient Registries (RoPR). Available at: http://www.outcome.com/ropr.htm. Accessed January 27, 2011.
66. US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Registry of Patient Registries. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/fund/ recoveryawards/osawinfra. htm. Accessed February 6, 2011.