Combining information from cancer registry and medical records data to improve analyses of adjuvant cancer therapies.
ABSTRACT: Cancer registry records contain valuable data on provision of adjuvant therapies for cancer patients. Previous studies, however, have shown that these therapies are underreported in registry systems. Hence direct use of the registry data may lead to invalid analysis results. We propose first to impute correct treatment status, borrowing information from an additional source such as medical records data collected in a validation sample, and then to analyze the multiply imputed data, as in Yucel and Zaslavsky (2005, Journal of the American Statistical Association 100, 1123-1132). We extend their models to multiple therapies using multivariate probit models with random effects. Our model takes into account the associations among different therapies in both administration and probability of reporting, as well as the multilevel structure (patients clustered within hospitals) of registry data. We use Gibbs sampling to estimate model parameters and impute treatment status. The proposed methodology is applied to the data from the Quality of Cancer Care project, in which stage II or III colorectal cancer patients were eligible to receive adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy.
Project description:Combining information from multiple data sources can enhance estimates of health-related measures by using one source to supply information that is lacking in another, assuming the former has accurate and complete data. However, there is little research conducted on combining methods when each source might be imperfect, for example, subject to measurement errors and/or missing data. In a multisite study of hospice-use by late-stage cancer patients, this variable was available from patients' abstracted medical records, which may be considerably underreported because of incomplete acquisition of these records. Therefore, data for Medicare-eligible patients were supplemented with their Medicare claims that contained information on hospice-use, which may also be subject to underreporting yet to a lesser degree. In addition, both sources suffered from missing data because of unit nonresponse from medical record abstraction and sample undercoverage for Medicare claims. We treat the true hospice-use status from these patients as a latent variable and propose to multiply impute it using information from both data sources, borrowing the strength from each. We characterize the complete-data model as a product of an 'outcome' model for the probability of hospice-use and a 'reporting' model for the probability of underreporting from both sources, adjusting for other covariates. Assuming the reports of hospice-use from both sources are missing at random and the underreporting are conditionally independent, we develop a Bayesian multiple imputation algorithm and conduct multiple imputation analyses of patient hospice-use in demographic and clinical subgroups. The proposed approach yields more sensible results than alternative methods in our example. Our model is also related to dual system estimation in population censuses and dual exposure assessment in epidemiology.
Project description:Importance:Adjuvant chemotherapy remains the only recommended treatment for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). However, the existing evidence is not enough to recommend adjuvant therapies to patients with T1 N0 M0 TNBC. Objective:To evaluate the association of different adjuvant therapies with survival outcome in patients with T1 N0 M0 TNBC stratified by cancer stage and age. Design, Setting, and Participants:Postoperative patients diagnosed as having T1 N0 M0 TNBC between 2010 and 2015 who were enrolled in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry program were included in this population-based cohort study. Data analysis was performed from March 27, 2019, to August 10, 2020. Exposures:Chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures:Kaplan-Meier curve and univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) between the different treatments. Results:A cohort of 7739 eligible patients (mean [SD] age, 59.5 [12.4] years; all female) were included in the present study. The 5-year OS of the total patients was 91.7% (95% CI, 90.9%-92.5%), and median follow-up was 45 months (95% CI, 44-46 months). Patients aged 70 years and older or with T1a TNBC were more likely to receive adjuvant radiotherapy than chemotherapy. Although any adjuvant therapy could improve OS in T1 N0 M0 TNBC, only chemotherapy was associated with significantly better breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS adjusted hazard ratio: 0.657; 95% CI, 0.460-0.939; P?=?.02). Adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery was associated with better OS and BCSS in patients aged 70 years and older but not in those younger than 70 years. For patients with T1c BC, chemotherapy after breast-conserving surgery or other surgery was associated with improved OS, whereas only chemotherapy after other surgery was associated with better BCSS. Conclusions and Relevance:The findings of this cohort study suggest that adjuvant therapies could improve OS in patients with T1 N0 M0 TNBC, whereas only chemotherapy was associated with better BCSS. Older patients with early-stage TNBC may benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy. Administration of adjuvant therapies to patients with different ages and cancer stages should be discussed carefully, which necessitates guidance from updated guidelines.
Project description:<h4>Purpose</h4>Studies have suggested a potential role of patient's co-morbidity in determining the survival outcomes of breast cancer. In this study, we examined the long-term oncologic outcomes in breast cancer patients who underwent curative surgery according to their pre-existing comorbid conditions and analyzed the association between the co-morbidity and the use of adjuvant therapies.<h4>Methods</h4>The medical records of 2,501 patients who underwent surgery for primary breast cancer from June 2006 to June 2010 were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were classified into three groups according to preoperative ASA status determined by the anesthesiologists. Clinico-pathologic characteristics and survival outcomes of the patients were compared among the different co-morbidity groups.<h4>Results</h4>There were 1,792 (71.6%), 665 (26.6%), and 44 (1.8%) patients in ASA I, II, and III, respectively. Total 95 (3.8%) deaths and 269 (10.8%) recurrences (loco-regional and distant) occurred during the median follow-up period of 71 months. Patients with high comorbidity showed significantly higher rate of deaths (51 (2.8%), 38 (5.7%) and 6 (13.6%) deaths in ASA I, II and III group, respectively, p<0.001). The ASA 3 patients also showed significantly higher rate of breast cancer recurrence when compared to other groups (180 (10.0%), 80 (12.0%) and 9 (20.5%) in ASA I, II, and III, respectively, p = 0.041). Significantly fewer patients in the high co-morbidity group received adjuvant therapies (77 (4.3%), 44 (6.6%) and 8 (18.2%) in ASA I, II, and III, respectively, p<0.001). The increased recurrence of breast cancer in the high morbidity group was mostly seen in patients who did not receive adjuvant therapies. The incidence of serious adverse effect during the adjuvant therapy did not differ according to the co-morbidity conditions.<h4>Conclusions</h4>In this study, high comorbidity was related to increased risk of death and recurrence in breast cancer. The increased risk of recurrence in high co-morbidity group was mostly seen in patients who did not receive adjuvant therapies. Considering the relatively low rates of serious adverse effects in high co-morbidity patients who received adjuvant therapies, active use of adjuvant therapies in selected patients may improve survival outcomes in breast cancer patients with severe co-morbidities.
Project description:Background and aims:Acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is a potentially fatal presentation of coronary artery disease (CAD). Evidence of the impact of acute pharmacological interventions in non-reperfused STEMI patients on subsequent events is limited. We aimed to assess the association between adherence to guideline-recommended preventive medications and in-hospital mortality among this high-risk patient population. Methods:We conducted a cohort study using data obtained from the Jakarta Acute Coronary Syndrome (JAC) Registry database from a tertiary care academic hospital in Indonesia. We included 1132 of 2694 patients with STEMI recorded between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2016 who did not undergo acute reperfusion therapy. Adherence to guideline-recommended preventive medications was defined as the combined administration of aspirin, clopidogrel, anticoagulants and statins after hospital admission. The main outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Results:Overall, 778 of 1132 patients (69%) received the combination of preventive medications. The guideline non-adherent group had significantly more patients with earlier onset of STEMI, higher Killip class and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) score. After adjustments for measured characteristics using logistic regression modeling, exposure to the combination of preventive therapies was associated with a statistically significant lower risk for in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 0.46, 95% confidence interval: 0.30-0.70). Conclusions:Adherence to guideline-recommended preventive medications was associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality in non-reperfused STEMI patients. The predictors of not receiving these medications need to be confirmed in future research.
Project description:Cancer incidence and mortality rates for American Indians in the Northern Plains region of the United States are among the highest in the nation. Reliable cancer surveillance data are essential to help reduce this burden; however, racial data in state cancer registries are often misclassified, and cases are often underreported.We used a community-based participatory research approach to conduct a retrospective ascertainment of cancer cases in clinic medical records over a 9-year period (1995-2003) and compared the results with the state cancer registry to evaluate missing or racially misclassified cases. Six tribal and/or urban Indian clinics participated in the study. The project team consisted of participating clinics, a state cancer registry, a comprehensive cancer center, an American Indian/Alaska Native Leadership Initiative on Cancer, and a set of diverse organizational partners. Clinic personnel were trained by project staff to accurately identify cancer cases in clinic records. These records were then matched with the state cancer registry to assess misclassification and underreporting.Forty American Indian cases were identified that were either missing or misclassified in the state registry. Adding these cases to the registry increased the number of American Indian cases by 21.3% during the study period (P = .05).Our results indicate that direct reporting of cancer cases by tribal and urban Indian health clinics to a state cancer registry improved the quality of the data available for cancer surveillance. Higher-quality data can advance the efforts of cancer prevention and control stakeholders to address disparities in Native communities.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Adjuvant chemotherapy in early stage breast cancer has been shown to reduce mortality in a large meta-analysis of over 100 randomised trials. However, these trials largely excluded patients aged 70 years and over or with higher levels of comorbidity. There is therefore uncertainty about whether the effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy generalises to these groups, hindering patient and clinician decision-making. This study utilises administrative healthcare data-real world data (RWD)-and econometric methods for causal analysis to estimate treatment effectiveness in these trial-underrepresented groups. METHODS AND FINDINGS:Women with early breast cancer aged 70 years and over and those under 70 years with a high level of comorbidity were identified and their records extracted from Scottish Cancer Registry (2001-2015) data linked to other routine health records. A high level of comorbidity was defined as scoring 1 or more on the Charlson comorbidity index, being in the top decile of inpatient stays, and/or having 5 or more visits to specific outpatient clinics, all within the 5 years preceding breast cancer diagnosis. Propensity score matching (PSM) and instrumental variable (IV) analysis, previously identified as feasible and valid in this setting, were used in conjunction with Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios for death from breast cancer and death from all causes. The analysis adjusts for age, clinical prognostic factors, and socioeconomic deprivation; the IV method may also adjust for unmeasured confounding factors. Cohorts of 9,653 and 7,965 were identified for women aged 70 years and over and those with high comorbidity, respectively. In the ?70/high comorbidity cohorts, median follow-up was 5.17/6.53 years and there were 1,935/740 deaths from breast cancer. For women aged 70 years and over, the PSM-estimated HR was 0.73 (95% CI 0.64-0.95), while for women with high comorbidity it was 0.67 (95% CI 0.51-0.86). This translates to a mean predicted benefit in terms of overall survival at 10 years of approximately3% (percentage points) and 4%, respectively. A limitation of this analysis is that use of observational data means uncertainty remains both from sampling uncertainty and from potential bias from residual confounding. CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study, as RWD, should be interpreted with caution and in the context of existing and emerging randomised data. The relative effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy in reducing mortality in patients with early stage breast cancer appears to be generalisable to the selected trial-underrepresented groups.
Project description:Statutory State-based cancer registries are considered the 'gold standard' for researchers identifying cancer cases in Australia, but research using self-report or administrative health datasets (e.g. hospital records) may not have linkage to a Cancer Registry and need to identify cases. This study investigated the validity of administrative and self-reported data compared with records in a State-wide Cancer Registry in identifying invasive breast cancer cases.Cases of invasive breast cancer recorded on the New South Wales (NSW) Cancer Registry between July 2004 and December 2008 (the study period) were identified for women in the 45 and Up Study. Registry cases were separately compared with suspected cases ascertained from: i) administrative hospital separations records; ii) outpatient medical service claims; iii) prescription medicines claims; and iv) the 45 and Up Study baseline survey. Ascertainment flags included diagnosis codes, surgeries (e.g. lumpectomy), services (e.g. radiotherapy), and medicines used for breast cancer, as well as self-reported diagnosis. Positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity and specificity were calculated for flags within individual datasets, and for combinations of flags across multiple datasets.Of 143,010 women in the 45 and Up Study, 2039 (1.4%) had an invasive breast tumour recorded on the NSW Cancer Registry during the study period. All of the breast cancer flags examined had high specificity (>97.5%). Of the flags from individual datasets, hospital-derived 'lumpectomy and diagnosis of invasive breast cancer' and '(lumpectomy or mastectomy) and diagnosis of invasive breast cancer' had the greatest PPV (89% and 88%, respectively); the later having greater sensitivity (59% and 82%, respectively). The flag with the highest sensitivity and PPV ? 85% was 'diagnosis of invasive breast cancer' (both 86%). Self-reported breast cancer diagnosis had a PPV of 50% and sensitivity of 85%, and breast radiotherapy had a PPV of 73% and a sensitivity of 58% compared with Cancer Registry records. The combination of flags with the greatest PPV and sensitivity was '(lumpectomy or mastectomy) and (diagnosis of invasive breast cancer or breast radiotherapy)' (PPV and sensitivity 83%).In the absence of Cancer Registry data, administrative and self-reported data can be used to accurately identify cases of invasive breast cancer for sample identification, removing cases from a sample, or risk adjustment. Invasive breast cancer can be accurately identified using hospital-derived diagnosis alone or in combination with surgeries and breast radiotherapy.
Project description:In the era of intensity modulation radiation therapy (IMRT), no prospective randomized trial has evaluated the efficacy of adjuvant therapies such as adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), adjuvant sequential chemotherapy and radiotherapy (CT-RT), and adjuvant CT alone in resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA). Through propensity score matching, we designed a nationwide, population-based, head-to-head cohort study to determine the effects of dissimilar adjuvant treatments on resectable PA. We minimized the confounding of various adjuvant treatment outcomes among the following resectable PA groups of patients from the Taiwan Cancer Registry database: group 1, adjuvant CCRT; group 2, adjuvant sequential CT-RT; and group 3, adjuvant CT alone. All the studied techniques are IMRTs. The matching process yielded a final cohort of 588 patients (196, 196, and 196 patients in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively). In both univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses, adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs; 95% confidence interval [CI]) of death derived for the adjuvant CCRT and adjuvant sequential CT-RT cohorts compared with the adjuvant CT alone cohort were 0.398 (0.314-0.504) and 0.307 (0.235-0.402), respectively. A combination of adjuvant IMRT and CT for resectable PA treatment improves survival to a greater extent than does adjuvant CT alone.
Project description:UNLABELLED:The objectives of this non-randomized, non-blinded, dose-escalating Phase I clinical trial were to assess the safety, reactogenicity and immunogenicity of ICC-1132 formulated with Alhydrogel (aluminum hydroxide) in 51 healthy, malaria-naive adults aged 18 to 45 years. ICC-1132 (Malariavax) is a recombinant, virus-like particle malaria vaccine comprised of hepatitis core antigen engineered to express the central repeat regions from Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoite protein containing an immunodominant B [(NANP)(3)] epitope, an HLA-restricted CD4 (NANPNVDPNANP) epitope and a universal T cell epitope (T*) (amino acids 326-345, NF54 isolate). We assessed an Alhydrogel (aluminum hydroxide)-adjuvanted vaccine formulation at three ICC-1132 dose levels, each injected intramuscularly (1.0 mL) on study days 0, 56 and 168. A saline vaccine formulation was found to be unstable after prolonged storage and this formulation was subsequently removed from the study. Thirty-two volunteers were followed for one year. Local and systemic adverse clinical events were measured and immune responses to P. falciparum and hepatitis B virus core antigens were determined utilizing the following assays: IgG and IgM ELISA, indirect immunofluorescence against P. falciparum sporozoites, circumsporozoite precipitin (CSP) and transgenic sporozoite neutralization assays. Cellular responses were measured by proliferation and IL-2 assays. Local and systemic reactions were similarly mild and well tolerated between dose cohorts. Depending on the ICC-1132 vaccine concentration, 95 to 100% of volunteers developed antibody responses to the ICC-1132 immunogen and HBc after two injections; however, only 29-75% and 29-63% of volunteers, respectively, developed malaria-specific responses measured by the malaria repeat synthetic peptide ELISA and IFA; 2 of 8 volunteers had positive reactions in the CSP assay. Maximal transgenic sporozoite neutralization assay inhibition was 54%. Forty-seven to seventy-five percent demonstrated T cell proliferation in response to ICC-1132 or to recombinant circumsporozoite protein (rCS) NF-54 isolate. This candidate malaria vaccine was well tolerated, but the vaccine formulation was poorly immunogenic. The vaccine may benefit from a more powerful adjuvant to improve immunogenicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00587249.