Validation of a medicare claims-based algorithm for identifying breast cancers detected at screening mammography

Medical Care

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2016, Pages e15-e22

  Fenton, Joshua J ^a   Onega, Tracy ^b   Zhu, Weiwei ^c   Balch, Steven ^c   Smith Bindman, Rebecca ^d,e   Henderson, Louise ^h   Sprague, Brian L ^e,f   Kerlikowske, Karla ^d,e   Hubbard, Rebecca A ^c,g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c GROUP HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d Department of Radiology ^*  (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer screening; Mammography; Medicare; Quality assessment; Validation studies

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER SCREENING; CLASSIFICATION ALGORITHM; CLASSIFICATION AND REGRESSION TREE ALGORITHM; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAID; MEDICAL FEE; MEDICARE; NATTINGER ALGORITHM; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES; VERY ELDERLY; ALGORITHM; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DEMOGRAPHY; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; INCIDENCE; INSURANCE; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; SOCIOECONOMICS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEE-FOR-SERVICE PLANS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; INSURANCE CLAIM REVIEW; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICARE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESIDENCE CHARACTERISTICS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84959112192     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: 15371948     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182a303d7     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Elmore JG, Jackson SL, Abraham L, et al. Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy. Radiology. 2009;253:641-651.
2. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom. JAMA. 2003;290:2129-2137.
3. Buist DS, Anderson ML, Haneuse SJ, et al. Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States. Radiology. 2011;259:72-84.
4. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology. 2006;241:55-66.
5. Carney PA, Sickles EA, Monsees BS, et al. Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammo-graphy. Radiology. 2010;255:354-361.
6. Nass S, Ball J. Improving Breast Imaging Quality Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2005.
7. Gross CP, Long JB, Ross JS, et al. The cost of breast cancer screening in the Medicare population. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173: 220-226.
8. Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2004. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2007.
9. Fenton JJ, Zhu W, Balch S, et al. Distingushing screening from diagnostic mammograms using Medicare claims data. Med Care. 2012. [Epub ahead of print].
10. Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology. 2005;235: 775-790.
11. Randolph WM, Mahnken JD, Goodwin JS, et al. Using Medicare data to estimate the prevalence of breast cancer screening in older women: comparison of different methods to identify screening mammograms. Health Serv Res. 2002;37:1643-1657.
12. Freeman JL, Zhang D, Freeman DH, et al. An approach to identifying incident breast cancer cases using Medicare claims data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:605-614.
13. Nattinger AB, Laud PW, Bajorunaite R, et al. An algorithm for the use of Medicare claims data to identify women with incident breast cancer. Health Serv Res. 2004;39:1733-1749.
14. Smith-Bindman R, Quale C, Chu PW, et al. Can Medicare billing claims data be used to assess mammography utilization among women ages 65 and older? Med Care. 2006;44:463-470.
15. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169:1001-1008.
16. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Breast Imaging Atlas. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
17. Lemon SC, Roy J, Clark MA, et al. Classification and regression tree analysis in public health: methodological review and comparison with logistic regression. Ann Behav Med. 2003;26:172-181.
18. Virnig BA, Warren JL, Cooper GS, et al. Studying radiation therapy using SEER-Medicare-linked data. Med Care. 2002;40: IV-49-IV-54.
19. Cooper GS, Virnig B, Klabunde CN, et al. Use of SEER-Medicare data for measuring cancer surgery. Med Care. 2002;40:IV-43-IV-48.
20. Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, et al. Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and general-izability to the United States elderly population. Med Care. 2002;40: IV-3-IV-18.