Invasive procedures in the elderly after stage IV cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Invasive procedures are resource intense and may be associated with substantial morbidity. These harms must be carefully balanced with the benefits gained in life expectancy and quality of life. Prior research has demonstrated an increasing aggressiveness of care in cancer patients at the end-of-life. To better characterize surgical care in this setting, we sought to examine trends in the use of invasive procedures in patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer on presentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results -Medicare data, we identified invasive procedure claims from 1994-2009 for patients diagnosed with incident stage IV breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer patients in 1995-2006. We grouped procedures into surgically relevant categories, using an adaptation of the Clinical Classifications Software, and measured utilization and relative changes over time. RESULTS: Of stage IV patients diagnosed in 2002-2006, 96% underwent a procedure during the course of their cancer care including 63% after the diagnostic period, and 25% in the last month of life. Between 1996 and 2006, minimal change was observed in utilization during the diagnostic period (+1.5%). However, there were significant increases during continuing care (+20.7%) and the last month of life (+21.5%). Procedures consistent with primary tumor resection decreased, whereas those with probable palliative intent and those unrelated to cancer increased. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all patients who present with metastatic cancer undergo invasive procedures. Although overall utilization is increasing, the specific procedure types indicate that it may be appropriate, enhancing the quality of life in this vulnerable population.

Interinstitutional variation in management decisions for treatment of 4 common types of cancer: A multi-institutional cohort study.

BACKGROUND: When clinical practice is governed by evidence-based guidelines and there is consensus about their validity, practice variation should be minimal. For areas in which evidence gaps exist, greater variation is expected. OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess interinstitutional variation in management decisions for 4 common types of cancer. DESIGN: Multi-institutional, observational cohort study of patients with cancer diagnosed between July 2006 through May 2011 and observed through 31 December 2011. SETTING: 18 cancer centers participating in the formulation of treatment guidelines and systematic outcomes assessment through the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. PATIENTS: 25 589 patients with incident breast cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma. MEASUREMENTS: Interinstitutional variation for 171 binary management decisions with varying levels of supporting evidence. For each decision, variation was characterized by the median absolute deviation of the center-specific proportions. RESULTS: Interinstitutional variation was high (median absolute deviation >10%) for 35 of 171 (20%) oncology management decisions, including 9 of 22 (41%) decisions for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 16 of 76 (21%) for breast cancer, 7 of 47 (15%) for lung cancer, and 3 of 26 (12%) for colorectal cancer. Forty-six percent of high-variance decisions involved imaging or diagnostic procedures and 37% involved choice of chemotherapy regimen. The evidence grade underpinning the 35 high-variance decisions was category 1 for 0%, 2A for 49%, and 2B/other for 51%. LIMITATION: Physician identifiers were unavailable, and results may not generalize outside of major cancer centers. CONCLUSION: The substantial variation in institutional practice manifest among cancer centers reveals a lack of consensus about optimal management for common clinical scenarios. For clinicians, awareness of management decisions with high variation should prompt attention to patient preferences. For health systems, high variation can be used to prioritize comparative effectiveness research, patient-provider education, or pathway development. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute and National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Validating billing/encounter codes as indicators of lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer recurrence using 2 large contemporary cohorts.

BACKGROUND: A substantial proportion of cancer-related mortality is attributable to recurrent, not de novo metastatic disease, yet we know relatively little about these patients. To fill this gap, investigators often use administrative codes for secondary malignant neoplasm or chemotherapy to identify recurrent cases in population-based datasets. However, these algorithms have not been validated in large, contemporary, routine care cohorts. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of secondary malignant neoplasm and chemotherapy codes as indicators of recurrence after definitive local therapy for stage I-III lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer. RESEARCH DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND MEASURES: We assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of these codes 14 and 60 months after diagnosis using 2 administrative datasets linked with gold-standard recurrence status information: CanCORS/Medicare (diagnoses 2003-2005) and HMO/Cancer Research Network (diagnoses 2000-2005). RESULTS: We identified 929 CanCORS/Medicare patients and 5298 HMO/CRN patients. Sensitivity, specificity, and PPV ranged widely depending on which codes were included and the type of cancer. For patients with lung, colorectal, and breast cancer, the combination of secondary malignant neoplasm and chemotherapy codes was the most sensitive (75%-85%); no code-set was highly sensitive and highly specific. For prostate cancer, no code-set offered even moderate sensitivity (≤ 19%). CONCLUSIONS: Secondary malignant neoplasm and chemotherapy codes could not identify recurrent cancer without some risk of misclassification. Findings based on existing algorithms should be interpreted with caution. More work is needed to develop a valid algorithm that can be used to characterize outcomes and define patient cohorts for comparative effectiveness research studies.

High-cost imaging in elderly patients with stage IV cancer.

BACKGROUND: Medicare expenditures for high-cost diagnostic imaging have risen faster than those for total cancer care and have been targeted for potential cost reduction. We sought to determine recent and long-term patterns in high-cost diagnostic imaging use among elderly (aged ≥65 years) patients with stage IV cancer. METHODS: We identified claims within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database with computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, and nuclear medicine scans between January 1994 and December 2009 for patients diagnosed with stage IV breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer between January 1995 and December 2006 (N = 100,594 patients). The proportion of these patients imaged and rate of imaging per-patient per-month of survival were calculated for each phase of care in patients diagnosed between January 2002 and December 2006 (N = 55,253 patients). Logistic regression was used to estimate trends in imaging use in stage IV patients diagnosed between January 1995 and December 2006, which were compared with trends in imaging use in early-stage (stages I and II) patients with the same tumor types during the same period (N = 192,429 patients). RESULTS: Among the stage IV patients diagnosed between January 2002 and December 2006, 95.9% underwent a high-cost diagnostic imaging procedure, with a mean number of 9.79 (SD = 9.77) scans per patient and 1.38 (SD = 1.24) scans per-patient per-month of survival. After the diagnostic phase, 75.3% were scanned again; 34.3% of patients were scanned in the last month of life. Between January 1995 and December 2006, the proportion of stage IV cancer patients imaged increased (relative increase = 4.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.7% to 5.6%), and the proportion of early-stage cancer patients imaged decreased (relative decrease = -2.5%, 95% CI = -3.2% to -1.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic imaging is used frequently in patients with stage IV disease, and its use increased more rapidly over the decade of study than that in patients with early-stage disease.

Development of a health care utilisation data-based index for rheumatoid arthritis severity: a preliminary study.

INTRODUCTION: Health care utilisation ('claims') databases contain information about millions of patients and are an important source of information for a variety of study types. However, they typically do not contain information about disease severity. The goal of the present study was to develop a health care claims index for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) severity using a previously developed medical records-based index for RA severity (RA medical records-based index of severity [RARBIS]). METHODS: The study population consisted of 120 patients from the Veteran's Administration (VA) Health System. We previously demonstrated the construct validity of the RARBIS and established its convergent validity with the Disease Activity Score (DAS28). Potential claims-based indicators were entered into a linear regression model as independent variables and the RARBIS as the dependent variable. The claims-based index for RA severity (CIRAS) was created using the coefficients from models with the highest coefficient of determination (R2) values selected by automated modelling procedures. To compare our claims-based index with our medical records-based index, we examined the correlation between the CIRAS and the RARBIS using Spearman non-parametric tests. RESULTS: The forward selection models yielded the highest model R2 for both the RARBIS with medications (R2 = 0.31) and the RARBIS without medications (R2 = 0.26). Components of the CIRAS included tests for inflammatory markers, number of chemistry panels and platelet counts ordered, rheumatoid factor, the number of rehabilitation and rheumatology visits, and Felty's syndrome diagnosis. The CIRAS demonstrated moderate correlations with the RARBIS with medication and the RARBIS without medication sub-scales. CONCLUSION: We developed the CIRAS that showed moderate correlations with a previously validated records-based index of severity. The CIRAS may serve as a potentially important tool in adjusting for RA severity in pharmacoepidemiology studies of RA treatment and complications using health care utilisation data.

The validity of a rheumatoid arthritis medical records-based index of severity compared with the DAS28.

The objective of this work was to assess the convergent validity of a previously developed rheumatoid arthritis medical records-based index of severity (RARBIS) by comparing it with the 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28). This study was conducted in subjects within the Brigham and Women's Hospital Rheumatoid Arthritis Sequential Study (BRASS). We selected 100 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from the BRASS with DAS28 scores equally distributed in four quartiles. The medical records were reviewed to calculate the RARBIS, which includes indicators from the following categories: prior surgical history, radiologic and laboratory findings, clinical and functional status, and extra-articular manifestations. The Spearman correlation between the RARBIS and the DAS28 was assessed in the total study population and in relevant subgroups. We re-weighted on subscales and recalculated the RARBIS score. This was performed based on findings of correlations between the DAS28 and subscales; and also the result from a multiple linear regression with the DAS28 (as a dependent variable) and five subscales (as independent variables). The mean RARBIS was 4.36 (range 0-11). Among the total study cohort, the RARBIS was moderately correlated with the DAS28 (r = 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.56). In subgroup analyses, including age, gender, rheumatoid factor status, and disease duration, we found no statistically significant differences in the correlations. After re-weighting, the correlation between the RARBIS and the DAS28 was somewhat improved (r = 0.48, 95% CI 0.31-0.62). In conclusion, the RARBIS correlated moderately well with the DAS28 in this population. The RARBIS has both face and convergent validity for patients with RA and relevant subgroups and may have application for medical records studies in patients with RA.

Performance of a rheumatoid arthritis records-based index of severity.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of a rheumatoid arthritis (RA) records-based index of severity (RARBIS) developed by a Delphi panel process in a cohort of patients with RA. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 120 RA patients from the New England Veteran's Administration (VA) Healthcare System and collected data on markers of RA disease severity. Markers were refined through a Delphi panel process before developing the RARBIS based on chart review. The RARBIS includes 5 subscales on surgery, radiography, extraarticular manifestations, clinical status, and laboratory values. Factors that were regarded by the Delphi panel as highly related to severity of RA were assigned higher points on the index. We assessed the validity of the RARBIS by comparing it to the intensity of the actual RA treatment that these patients received: low, neither biologic nor disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use; moderate, therapy with DMARD such as hydroxychloroquine, gold, or sulfasalazine; high, treatment with stronger DMARD such as methotrexate, azathioprine, leflunomide, and cyclosporine; and very high, use of any biologics. RESULTS: The RARBIS had a range of 0 to 8. All subscales except extraarticular manifestations were statistically significantly related to intensity of RA treatment (chi-square test p

Development and assessment of indicators of rheumatoid arthritis severity: results of a Delphi panel.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of indicators for assessing the severity of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) through medical records. METHODS: A list of 47 potential indicators of RA was reviewed by an expert Delphi panel of 6 rheumatologists. The Delphi method is a formal approach for gathering expert opinion. The 47 potential indicators included items from the following 5 categories: radiologic and laboratory findings, clinical and functional status measures, extraarticular manifestations, prior surgical history, and medications. The panelists rated the potential indicators' relationship to RA disease severity. Each panelist rated each indicator on a scale of 0-6, in which 0 indicated no relationship at all with severe RA and 6 indicated a perfect relationship with severe RA. After a baseline set of ratings, a literature review was distributed to the panelists along with the panel's initial mean ratings and the ranges. The panelists then met to discuss the literature and rerate all indicators. RESULTS: After repeat ratings and review of relevant literature, the panel rated 28 of 47 (60%) potential indicators as having a strong or very strong relationship to severe RA. These 28 indicators were drawn from all 5 categories of potential indicators. There was agreement among the panelists on ratings for 41 of 47 indicators. Agreement was defined as a range of scores among the panelists