Breast cancer treatment across health care systems: Linking electronic medical records and state registry data to enable outcomes research

Cancer

Volumn 120, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 103-111

  Kurian, Allison W ^a   Mitani, Aya ^a   Desai, Manisha ^a   Yu, Peter P ^b   Seto, Tina ^a   Weber, Susan C ^a   Olson, Cliff ^b   Kenkare, Pragati ^b   Gomez, Scarlett L ^a,c   De Bruin, Monique A ^a   Horst, Kathleen ^a   Belkora, Jeffrey ^b,d   May, Suepattra G ^b   Frosch, Dominick L ^b,e,f   Blayney, Douglas W ^a   Luft, Harold S ^b,d   Das, Amar K ^a,g  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c CANCER PREVENTION INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f GORDON AND BETTY MOORE FOUNDATION   (United States)

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

Author keywords

bioinformatics; breast cancer; comparative effectiveness; data linkage; electronic medical records; outcomes research; Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER REGISTRY; COMMUNITY CARE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MASTECTOMY; MEDICAID; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;

BIOINFORMATICS; BREAST CANCER; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DATA LINKAGE; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; SURVEILLANCE, EPIDEMIOLOGY, AND END RESULTS (SEER) REGISTRY;

ADULT; AGED; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COHORT STUDIES; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); REGISTRIES;

EID: 84890802674     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28395     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Favourable and unfavourable effects on long-term survival of radiotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Lancet. 2000; 355: 1757-1770.
2. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005; 365: 1687-1717.
3. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353: 1784-1792. (Pubitemid 41549890)
4. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347: 1227-1232. (Pubitemid 35176241)
5. Katz SJ, Lantz PM, Janz NK, et al. Patient involvement in surgery treatment decisions for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 5526-5533.
6. Katz SJ, Morrow M,. The challenge of individualizing treatments for patients with breast cancer. JAMA. 2012; 307: 1379-1380.
7. Morrow M, Jagsi R, Alderman AK, et al. Surgeon recommendations and receipt of mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer. JAMA. 2009; 302: 1551-1556.
8. Selby JV, Beal AC, Frank L,. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) national priorities for research and initial research agenda. JAMA. 2012; 307: 1583-1584.
9. Sox HC, Greenfield S,. Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151: 203-205.
10. VanLare JM, Conway PH, Sox HC,. Five next steps for a new national program for comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362: 970-973.
11. Methodology Committee of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research: the PCORI perspective. JAMA. 2012; 307: 1636-1640.
12. Hershman DL, Wright JD,. Comparative effectiveness research in oncology methodology: observational data. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 4215-4222.
13. Miriovsky BJ, Shulman LN, Abernethy AP,. Importance of health information technology, electronic health records, and continuously aggregating data to comparative effectiveness research and learning health care. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 4243-4248.
14. Bickell NA, McAlearney AS, Wellner J, Fei K, Franco R,. Understanding the challenges of adjuvant treatment measurement and reporting in breast cancer: cancer treatment measuring and reporting. Med Care. 2013; 51: e35-e40.
15. Lodrigues W, Dumas J, Rao M, Lilley L, Rao R,. Compliance with the commission on cancer quality of breast cancer care measures: self-evaluation advised. Breast J. 2011; 17: 167-171.
16. California Cancer Registry. ccrcal.org. Accessed June 7, 2013.
17. Lowe HJ, Ferris TA, Hernandez PM, Weber SC,. STRIDE-an integrated standards-based translational research informatics platform. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2009; 2009: 391-395.
18. Hernandez PN, Podchiyska T, Weber SC, Ferris TA, Lowe, HJ,. Automated mapping of pharmacy orders from two electronic health record systems to RxNorm within the STRIDE clinical data warehouse. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2009; 2009: 244-248.
19. National Cancer Institute Enterprise Vocabulary Services. evs.nci.nih.gov/. Accessed June 7, 2013.
20. Yost K, Perkins C, Cohen R, Morris C, Wright W,. Socioeconomic status and breast cancer incidence in California for different race/ethnic groups. Cancer Causes Control. 2001; 12: 703-711. (Pubitemid 32803497)
21. Weber SC, Lowe H, Das A, Ferris T,. A simple heuristic for blindfolded record linkage. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012; 19: e157-e161.
22. Weber SC, Seto T, Olson C, Kenkare P, Kurian AW, Das AK,. Oncoshare: lessons learned from building an integrated multi-institutional database for comparative effectiveness research. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2012; 2012: 970-978.
23. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, et al. Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA. 2006; 295: 2492-2502. (Pubitemid 43854964)
24. Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1998; 352: 930-942.
25. Carlson RW, Allred DC, Anderson BO, et al; National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Invasive breast cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2011; 9: 136-222.
26. Darby S, McGale P, Correa C, et al. Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet. 2011; 378: 1707-1716.
27. Guadagnolo BA, Liao KP, Elting L, Giordano S, Buchholz TA, Shih YC,. Use of radiation therapy in the last 30 days of life among a large population-based cohort of elderly patients in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31: 80-87.
28. Snyder CF, Frick KD, Herbert RJ, et al. Quality of care for comorbid conditions during the transition to survivorship: differences between cancer survivors and noncancer controls. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31: 1140-1148.
29. Hershman DL, Kushi LH, Shao T, et al. Early discontinuation and nonadherence to adjuvant hormonal therapy in a cohort of 8,769 early-stage breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 4120-4128.
30. Kurian AW, Lichtensztajn DY, Keegan TH, et al. Patterns and predictors of breast cancer chemotherapy use in Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 2004-2007. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013; 137: 247-260.
31. Edinger T, Cohen AM, Bedrick S, Ambert K, Hersh W,. Barriers to retrieving patient information from electronic health record data: failure analysis from the TREC Medical Records Track. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2012; 2012: 180-188.
32. Ohno-Machado L,. Realizing the full potential of electronic health records: the role of natural language processing. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011; 18: 539.
33. Hersh WR, Weiner MG, Embi PJ, et al. Caveats for the use of operational electronic health record data in comparative effectiveness research. Med Care. 2013; 51 (8 suppl 3): S30-S37.
34. Weiskopf NG, Weng C,. Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: enabling reuse for clinical research. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013; 20: 144-151.
35. Basch E, Abernethy AP, Mullins CD, et al. Recommendations for incorporating patient-reported outcomes into clinical comparative effectiveness research in adult oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 4249-4255.
36. Stewart AK, McNamara E, Gay EG, Banasiak J, Winchester DP,. The Rapid Quality Reporting System-a new quality of care tool for CoC-accredited cancer programs. J Registry Manag. 2011; 38: 61-63.
37. Kurian AW, Edge SB,. Information technology interventions to improve cancer care quality: a report from the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Care Symposium. J Oncol Pract. 2013; 9: 142-144.
38. Gomez SL, Lichtensztajn D, Kurian AW, et al. Increasing mastectomy rates for early-stage breast cancer? Population-based trends from California. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: e155-e157.
39. Katipamula R, Degnim AC, Hoskin T, et al. Trends in mastectomy rates at the Mayo Clinic Rochester: effect of surgical year and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 4082-4088.
40. Tuttle TM, Habermann EB, Grund EH, Morris TJ, Virnig BA,. Increasing use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer patients: a trend toward more aggressive surgical treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 5203-5209. (Pubitemid 350232251)
41. Tuttle TM, Jarosek S, Habermann EB, et al. Increasing rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 1362-1367.
42. Collins ED, Moore CP, Clay KF, et al. Can women with early-stage breast cancer make an informed decision for mastectomy? J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 519-525.
43. Hwang ES, Lichtensztajn DY, Gomez SL, Fowble B, Clarke CA,. Survival after lumpectomy and mastectomy for early stage invasive breast cancer: the effect of age and hormone receptor status. Cancer. 2013; 119: 1402-1411.
44. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347: 1233-1241. (Pubitemid 35176242)
45. Tuttle TM,. Magnetic resonance imaging and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: the "no mas" effect? Ann Surg Oncol. 2009; 16: 1461-1462.
46. King TA, Sakr R, Patil S, et al. Clinical management factors contribute to the decision for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29: 2158-2164.
47. Bedrosian I, Hu CY, Chang GJ,. Population-based study of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and survival outcomes of breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010; 102: 401-409.
48. Daly MB, Axilbund JE, Buys S, et al; National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010; 8: 562-594.
49. Mainiero MB, Lourenco A, Mahoney MC, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria Breast Cancer Screening. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013; 10: 11-14.
50. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al; American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Advisory Group. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007; 57: 75-89. (Pubitemid 46535708)
51. Blayney DW, McNiff K, Hanauer D, Miela G, Markstrom D, Neuss M,. Implementation of the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative at a university comprehensive cancer center. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 3802-3807.
52. Neuss MN, Desch CE, McNiff KK, et al. A process for measuring the quality of cancer care: the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 6233-6239.
53. Schnipper LE, Smith TJ, Raghavan D, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology identifies five key opportunities to improve care and reduce costs: the top five list for oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 1715-1724.