Treatment patterns for prostate cancer: Comparison of medicare claims data to medical record review

Medical Care

Volumn 52, Issue 9, 2014, Pages

  Fleming, Steven T ^a   Hamilton, Ann S ^b   Sabatino, Susan A ^c   Kimmick, Gretchen G ^d   Wu, Xiao Cheng ^e   Owen, Jean B ^f   Huang, Bin ^g   Hwang, Wenke ^h  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION   (United States)

^d DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

^f AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^h PENN STATE COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

administrative data; claims; Medicare; prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

GONADORELIN AGONIST; GOSERELIN; LEUPRORELIN;

AGED; BRACHYTHERAPY; CANCER HORMONE THERAPY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER STAGING; CRYOSURGERY; DATA BASE; EXTERNAL BEAM RADIOTHERAPY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; MEDICARE; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; REVIEW;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COMBINED MODALITY THERAPY; COMORBIDITY; DATA COLLECTION; HUMANS; INSURANCE CLAIM REVIEW; MALE; MEDICAL RECORDS; MEDICARE; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REGISTRIES; SEER PROGRAM; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84906086767     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: 15371948     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318277eba5     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Wilt TJ, MacDonald R, Rutks I, et al. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and harms of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:435-448.
2. Romano P, Mark D. Bias in the coding of hospital discharge data and it implications for quality assessment. Med Care. 1994;32:81-90.
3. Dresser M, Feingold L, Rosenkranz S, et al. Clinical quality measurement: comparing chart review and automated methodologies. Med Care. 1997;35:539-552.
4. Steinwachs D, Stuart M, Scholle S, et al. A comparison of ambulatory Medicaid claims to medical records: a reliability assessment. Am J Med Qual. 1998;13:63-69.
5. Dismuke C. Underreporting of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging procedures in inpatient claims data. Med Care. 2005;43:713-717.
6. Bright R, Avorn J, Everitt D. Medicaid data as a resource for epidemiologic studies: strengths and weaknesses. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:937-945.
7. Quan H, Parsons G, Ghali W. Validity of procedure codes in international classification of diseases, 9th revision, clinical modification administrative data. Med Care. 2004;42:801-809.
8. Romano P. Using administrative data to identify associations between implanted medical devices and chronic diseases. Ann Epidemiol. 2000;10:197-199.
9. Du X, Freeman JL, Warren JL, et al. Accuracy and completeness of Medicare claims data for surgical treatment of breast cancer. Med Care. 2000;38:719-727.
10. Du XL, Key CR, Dickie L, et al. External validation of Medicare claims for breast cancer chemotherapy compared with medical chart review. Med Care. 2006;44:124-131.
11. Warren JL, Harlan LC, Fahey A, et al. Utility of the SEER-Medicare data to identify chemotherapy use. Med Care. 2002;40(suppl):IV55-IV61.
12. Du X, Freeman JL, Goodwin JS. Information on radiation treatment in patients with breast cancer: the advantages of the linked Medicare and SEER data. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:463-470.
13. Virnig BA, Warren JL, Cooper GS, et al. Studying radiation therapy using SEER-Medicare-Linked data. Med Care. 2002;40(suppl):IV49-IV54.
14. Cooper GS, Virnig B, Klabunde CN, et al. Use of SEER-Medicare data for measuring cancer surgery. Med Care. 2002;40(suppl):IV43-IV48.
15. Cooper GC, Schultz L, Simpkins J, et al. The utility of administrative data for measuring adherence to cancer surveillance care guidelines. Med Care. 2007;45:66-72.
16. Penberthy L, McClish D, Manning C, et al. The added value of claims for cancer surveillance: results of varying case definitions. Med Care. 2005;43:705-712
17. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/ professionals/physician-gls/f-guidelines.asp. Accessed on October 30, 2012.
18. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed. New York: Springer; 2002.
19. Piccirillo JF, Creech C, Zequeira R, et al. Inclusion of comorbidity into oncology data registries. J Registry Manag. 1999;26:66-70.
20. Buck CJ, Lovaasen KR. 2005 ICD-9-CM, Volumes 1, 2, and 3 and HCPCS Level II. St. Louis: Saunders, Elsevier; 2005.
21. American Medical Association. Current Procedural Terminology CPT 2005. Chicago: AMA Press; 2004.
22. Keopsell TD, Weiss NS. Epidemiologic Methods. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.
23. Kuo YF, Goodwin JS, Shahinian VB. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist use in men without a cancer registry diagnosis of prostate cancer. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:146.
24. Saftlas AF, Santariano WA, Swanson GM, et al. Methods of cancer selection: implications for research. Am J Epidemiol. 1983;118:852-856.
25. Malin JL, Kahn KL, Adams J, et al. Validity of cancer registry data for measuring the quality of breast cancer care. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:835-844.
26. German RR, Wike JM, Bauer KR, et al. Quality of cancer registry data: findings from CDC-NPCR's Breast and Prostate Cancer Data Quality and Patterns of Care Study. J Registry Manag. 2011;38:75-86.
27. Tyree P, Lind B, Lafferty W. Challenges of using medical insurance claims data for utilization analysis. Am J Med Qual. 2006;21: 269-275.
28. Cooper G, Yuan Z, Stange K, et al. Agreement of Medicare claims and tumor registry data for assessment of cancer-related treatment. Med Care. 2000;38:411-421.
29. Pinfold P, Goel V, Sawka C. Quality of hospital discharge and physician data for type of breast cancer surgery. Med Care. 2000;38:99-107.
30. Schneeweiss S, Avorn J. A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologic research on therapeutics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:323-337.
31. Thomas EJ, Studdert DM, Brennan TA. The Reliability of medical record review for estimating adverse event rates. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:812-816.