Validity of using general and cancer-specific health administrative data to identify treatment exposures in adolescents and young adults with cancer: A population-based study using the IMPACT cohort.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Cancer Epidemiology Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-08-09 DOI:10.1016/j.canep.2025.102902
Louise Guolla, Cindy Lau, Kelvin K W Chan, Paul C Nathan, Sumit Gupta
{"title":"Validity of using general and cancer-specific health administrative data to identify treatment exposures in adolescents and young adults with cancer: A population-based study using the IMPACT cohort.","authors":"Louise Guolla, Cindy Lau, Kelvin K W Chan, Paul C Nathan, Sumit Gupta","doi":"10.1016/j.canep.2025.102902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cancer treatment details (i.e., radiation site, chemotherapy dose) are required to conduct rigorous health services research but are difficult to obtain from administrative data. We conducted a validation study to ascertain the optimal algorithm for defining cancer treatment details in cancer-specific and general health administrative data using available chart-abstracted data from adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Health administrative data and cancer treatment data reported by visit in Ontario, Canada were compared separately and in a combined algorithm to a reference-standard chart-abstracted database of AYA cancer patients diagnosed in 2005-2012 (n = 1173). We tested algorithms for three tiers of treatment details: any chemotherapy/radiotherapy provided; type of chemotherapy/site of radiation; dose of chemotherapy/radiation. For each algorithm, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value with 95 % confidence intervals (95 %CI) and simple kappa statistics, overall and according to cancer type, diagnosis period, and locus of care.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>General health administrative data had high sensitivity and specificity (> 80 %) for detection of any chemotherapy (n = 942) or radiation exposure (n = 412) and was not improved by using cancer-specific data. In 475 patients (40.5 %) with chemotherapy treatment records, sensitivity (22.4-59.6 %) and specificity (95.8-99.1 %) varied by chemotherapy type/class. Factors associated with missing records include locus of care (9.5 % in pediatric vs. 81.7 % in adult cancer centres), year of diagnosis, and type of cancer. There was moderate to strong correlation (r = 0.50-0.79) between dosing for the most common anthracyclines, combined alkylators, cisplatin, and bleomycin. For radiation treatment data (n = 406, 98.5 %), sensitivity and specificity for radiation site ranged from 73.4 % to 91.2 % and 96.6 % to 99.7 %, respectively, with strong dosing correlation (r = 0.63-0.95, by site).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both general and cancer-specific health administrative data have value in determining receipt of chemotherapy and/or radiation and can be used reliably to create cohorts of exposed cancer patients. More granular information regarding dose and type of chemotherapy and dose and site of radiation therapy is highly specific but limited by variable sensitivity. Care should be taken when using the data to estimate prevalence, compare treated/untreated groups or when full capture of an exposed population is otherwise required as underestimations of the true effect may occur.</p>","PeriodicalId":56322,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Epidemiology","volume":"98 ","pages":"102902"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2025.102902","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Cancer treatment details (i.e., radiation site, chemotherapy dose) are required to conduct rigorous health services research but are difficult to obtain from administrative data. We conducted a validation study to ascertain the optimal algorithm for defining cancer treatment details in cancer-specific and general health administrative data using available chart-abstracted data from adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients.

Methods: Health administrative data and cancer treatment data reported by visit in Ontario, Canada were compared separately and in a combined algorithm to a reference-standard chart-abstracted database of AYA cancer patients diagnosed in 2005-2012 (n = 1173). We tested algorithms for three tiers of treatment details: any chemotherapy/radiotherapy provided; type of chemotherapy/site of radiation; dose of chemotherapy/radiation. For each algorithm, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value with 95 % confidence intervals (95 %CI) and simple kappa statistics, overall and according to cancer type, diagnosis period, and locus of care.

Results: General health administrative data had high sensitivity and specificity (> 80 %) for detection of any chemotherapy (n = 942) or radiation exposure (n = 412) and was not improved by using cancer-specific data. In 475 patients (40.5 %) with chemotherapy treatment records, sensitivity (22.4-59.6 %) and specificity (95.8-99.1 %) varied by chemotherapy type/class. Factors associated with missing records include locus of care (9.5 % in pediatric vs. 81.7 % in adult cancer centres), year of diagnosis, and type of cancer. There was moderate to strong correlation (r = 0.50-0.79) between dosing for the most common anthracyclines, combined alkylators, cisplatin, and bleomycin. For radiation treatment data (n = 406, 98.5 %), sensitivity and specificity for radiation site ranged from 73.4 % to 91.2 % and 96.6 % to 99.7 %, respectively, with strong dosing correlation (r = 0.63-0.95, by site).

Conclusions: Both general and cancer-specific health administrative data have value in determining receipt of chemotherapy and/or radiation and can be used reliably to create cohorts of exposed cancer patients. More granular information regarding dose and type of chemotherapy and dose and site of radiation therapy is highly specific but limited by variable sensitivity. Care should be taken when using the data to estimate prevalence, compare treated/untreated groups or when full capture of an exposed population is otherwise required as underestimations of the true effect may occur.

使用一般和癌症特异性健康管理数据来确定青少年和年轻癌症患者接受治疗的有效性:一项使用IMPACT队列的基于人群的研究
导言:癌症治疗细节(即放疗地点、化疗剂量)需要进行严格的卫生服务研究,但很难从行政数据中获得。我们进行了一项验证研究,以确定在癌症特异性和一般健康管理数据中定义癌症治疗细节的最佳算法,使用来自青少年和年轻成人(AYA)癌症患者的可用图表抽象数据。方法:将加拿大安大略省2005-2012年诊断为AYA癌症患者的卫生管理数据和就诊报告的癌症治疗数据分别与参考-标准图表-抽象数据库(n = 1173)进行联合算法比较。我们测试了三层治疗细节的算法:提供的任何化疗/放疗;化疗类型/放疗部位;化疗/放疗剂量。对于每种算法,我们计算敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值,其95% %置信区间(95% %CI)和简单kappa统计,总体上并根据癌症类型、诊断期和护理地点进行统计。结果:一般健康管理数据对任何化疗(n = 942)或放射暴露(n = 412)的检测具有较高的敏感性和特异性(> 80 %),而使用癌症特异性数据没有提高。在475例有化疗记录的患者(40.5 %)中,敏感性(22.4-59.6 %)和特异性(95.8-99.1 %)因化疗类型/类别而异。与缺失记录相关的因素包括治疗地点(儿童为9.5% %,成人癌症中心为81.7 %)、诊断年份和癌症类型。最常见的蒽环类药物、联合烷基化剂、顺铂和博来霉素的剂量之间存在中度至强相关性(r = 0.50-0.79)。放射治疗数据(98.5 n = 406年  %),敏感性和特异性辐射站点范围从73.4 % 91.2 %和96.6 % 99.7 %,分别拥有强大剂量相关性(r = 0.63 - -0.95,通过网站)。结论:一般和癌症特异性的健康管理数据在确定接受化疗和/或放疗方面都有价值,并且可以可靠地用于创建暴露的癌症患者队列。关于化疗的剂量和类型以及放射治疗的剂量和部位的更细粒度的信息是高度特异性的,但受可变敏感性的限制。在使用数据估计流行率、比较治疗/未治疗组时,或在需要对暴露人群进行全面调查时,应小心谨慎,否则可能会低估真实效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cancer Epidemiology
Cancer Epidemiology 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.80%
发文量
200
审稿时长
39 days
期刊介绍: Cancer Epidemiology is dedicated to increasing understanding about cancer causes, prevention and control. The scope of the journal embraces all aspects of cancer epidemiology including: • Descriptive epidemiology • Studies of risk factors for disease initiation, development and prognosis • Screening and early detection • Prevention and control • Methodological issues The journal publishes original research articles (full length and short reports), systematic reviews and meta-analyses, editorials, commentaries and letters to the editor commenting on previously published research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信