Intended versus inferred management after PET for cancer restaging: Analysis of medicare claims linked to a coverage with evidence development registry

Medical Care

Volumn 51, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 361-367

  Hillner, Bruce E ^a   Tosteson, Tor ^b   Tosteson, Anna N ^b   Wang, Qianfei ^b   Song, Yunjie ^b   Onega, Tracy ^b   Hanna, Lucy ^c   Siegel, Barry ^d  

^a VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b DARTMOUTH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH POLICY AND CLINICAL PRACTICE   (United States)

^c BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

cohort studies; health services research; medical record linkage; Medicare; neoplasm staging; positron emission tomography

Indexed keywords

AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOPSY; BLADDER CANCER; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER RESTAGING; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURGERY; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMORBIDITY; DISEASE SEVERITY; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HUMAN; KIDNEY CANCER; LUNG SMALL CELL CANCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICARE; METASTASIS; OVARY CANCER; PANCREAS CANCER; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; STOMACH CANCER; TREATMENT PLANNING;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOPSY; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HUMANS; INSURANCE CLAIM REVIEW; MALE; MEDICARE; NEOPLASM STAGING; NEOPLASMS; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; QUESTIONNAIRES; REGISTRIES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84875445476     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: 15371948     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318287d860     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. AB-01-54: Expanded Coverage of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Scans and Related Claims Processing Changes. 2000. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/transmittals/downloads/R136CIM. pdf. Accessed December 22, 2012
2. Lindsay MJ, Siegel BA, Tunis SR, et al. The National Oncologic PET Registry: expanded Medicare coverage for PET under coverage with evidence development. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:1109-1113
3. Tunis SR, Pearson SD. Coverage options for promising technologies: Medicare's coverage with evidence development. Health Aff. 2006;25:1218-1230
4. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. National Coverage Determinations with Data Collection as a Condition of Coverage: Coverage with Evidence Development. Document Issued July 12,
5. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/Transmittals/downloads/R956CP.pdf. Accessed December 22, 2012
6. Tunis SR, Carino TV, Williams RD II, et al. Federal initiatives to support rapid learning about new technologies. Health Aff. 2007; 26:w140-w149
7. Levine MN, Julian JA. Registries that show efficacy: good, but not good enough. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5316-5319
8. Tunis S, Whicher D. The National Oncologic PET Registry: lessons learned for coverage with evidence development. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6:360-365
9. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Shields AF, et al. The impact of positron emission tomography (PET) on expected management during cancer treatment: findings of the National Oncologic PET Registry. Cancer. 2009;115:410-418
10. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Shields AF, et al. Relationship between cancer type and impact of PET and PET/CT on intended management: findings of the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Nucl Med. 2008;49: 1928-1935
11. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Liu D, et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2155-2161
12. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Shields AF, et al. Impact of dedicated brain PET on intended patient management in participants of the national oncologic PET Registry. Mol Imaging Biol. 2011;13:161-165
13. Keating NL, Landrum MB, Lamont EB, et al. Quality of care for older patients with cancer in the veterans health administration versus the private sector. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:727-736
14. Lamont EB, Lauderdale DS, Schilsky RL, et al. Construct validity of medicare chemotherapy claims: the case of 5FU. Med Care. 2002;40:p201-p211
15. Smith BD, Pan I-W, Shih Y-CT, et al. Adoption of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for breast cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:798-809
16. Klabunde CN, Legler JM, Warren JL, et al. Refined comorbidity measurement algorithm for claims-based studies of breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer patients. Ann Epidemiol. 2007;17:584-590
17. Klabunde CN. SEER-Medical calculation of comorbidity weights. Available at: http://healthservices.cancer.gov/seermedicare/program/co morbidity.html). Accessed December 22, 2012
18. Henderson LM, Reeder-Hayes K, Hinton SP, et al. Comparing physician-reported cancer management plans with Medicare services received. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:664-666
19. Lamont EB, Herndon JE II, Weeks JC, et al. Criterion validity of Medicare chemotherapy claims in Cancer and Leukemia Group B breast and lung cancer trial participants. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97: 1080-1083
20. Du XL, Key CR, Dickie L, et al. External validation of medicare claims for breast cancer chemotherapy compared with medical chart reviews. Med Care. 2006;44:124-131
21. Liang SY, Phillips KA, Wang G, et al. Tradeoffs of using administrative claims and medical records to identify the use of personalized medicine for patients with breast cancer. Med Care. 2011;49:e1-e8
22. Warren JL, Harlan LC, Fahey A, et al. Utility of the SEER-Medicare data to identify chemotherapy use. Med Care. 2002;40(suppl 8):IV-55-IV-61
23. Lamont EB, Lan L. Sensitivity of Medicare claims data for measuring use of standard multiagent chemotherapy regimens. Med Care. 2012. [Epub ahead of print]
24. Lund JL, Sturmer T, Harlan LC, et al. Identifying specific chemotherapeutic agents in medicare data: a validation study. Med Care. 2011. [Epub ahead of print]
25. Miller DC, Saigal CS, Warren JL, et al. External validation of a claimsbased algorithm for classifying kidney-cancer surgeries. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:92
26. Cooper GS, Virnig B, Klabunde CN, et al. Use of SEER-Medicare data for measuring cancer surgery. Med Care. 2002;40(suppl 8):IV-43-IV-48
27. Virnig BA, Warren JL, Cooper GS, et al. Studying radiation therapy using SEER-Medicare-linked data. Med Care. 2002;40(suppl 8):IV-49-IV-54
28. Scott AM, Gunawardana DH, Kelley B, et al. PET changes management and improves prognostic stratification in patients with recurrent colorectal cancer: results of a multicenter prospective study. J Nuclear Med. 2008;49:1451-1457
29. Scott AM, Gunawardana DH, Bartholomeusz D, et al. PET changes management and improves prognostic stratification in patients with head and neck cancer: results of a multicenter prospective study. J Nuclear Med. 2008;49:1593-1600
30. Scott AM, Gunawardana DH, Wong J, et al. Positron emission tomography changes management, improves prognostic stratification and is superior to gallium scintigraphy in patients with low-grade lymphoma: results of a multicentre prospective study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag. 2009;36:347-353
31. Fulham MJ, Carter J, Baldey A, et al. The impact of PET-CT in suspected recurrent ovarian cancer: a prospective multi-centre study as part of the Australian PET Data Collection Project. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112:462-468
32. Chatterton BE, Ho Shon I, Baldey A, et al. Positron emission tomography changes management and prognostic stratification in patients with oesophageal cancer: results of a multicentre prospective study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag. 2009;36:354-361
33. Staub LP, Lord SJ, Simes RJ, et al. Using patient management as a surrogate for patient health outcomes in diagnostic test evaluation. BMC Med Res Method. 2012;12:12