Clinical Investigation
Muddy Water? Variation in Reporting Receipt of Breast Cancer Radiation Therapy by Population-Based Tumor Registries

Portions of this work were presented in an oral presentation at the 54th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, October 28-31, 2012, Boston, MA.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.03.016Get rights and content

Purpose

To evaluate, in the setting of breast cancer, the accuracy of registry radiation therapy (RT) coding compared with the gold standard of Medicare claims.

Methods and Materials

Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data, we identified 73,077 patients aged ≥66 years diagnosed with breast cancer in the period 2001-2007. Underascertainment (1 - sensitivity), sensitivity, specificity, κ, and χ2 were calculated for RT receipt determined by registry data versus claims. Multivariate logistic regression characterized patient, treatment, and geographic factors associated with underascertainment of RT. Findings in the SEER–Medicare registries were compared with three non-SEER registries (Florida, New York, and Texas).

Results

In the SEER–Medicare registries, 41.6% (n=30,386) of patients received RT according to registry coding, versus 49.3% (n=36,047) according to Medicare claims (P<.001). Underascertainment of RT was more likely if patients resided in a newer SEER registry (odds ratio [OR] 1.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.60-1.80; P<.001), rural county (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.21-1.48; P<.001), or if RT was delayed (OR 1.006/day, 95% CI 1.006-1.007; P<.001). Underascertainment of RT receipt in SEER registries was 18.7% (95% CI 18.6-18.8%), compared with 44.3% (95% CI 44.0-44.5%) in non-SEER registries.

Conclusions

Population-based tumor registries are highly variable in ascertainment of RT receipt and should be augmented with other data sources when evaluating quality of breast cancer care. Future work should identify opportunities for the radiation oncology community to partner with registries to improve accuracy of treatment data.

Introduction

The Institute of Medicine has long advocated the development of systems to measure and monitor the quality of cancer care received by the US population (1). Such systems could identify populations who receive poor-quality care, thereby enabling targeted interventions to improve care and outcomes. Population-based tumor registries represent one important avenue for measuring quality of cancer care. For example, in breast cancer, data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) population-based registry program have been used to determine whether radiation therapy (RT) is used appropriately after lumpectomy and mastectomy 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Such studies have largely concluded that RT is underutilized in breast cancer patients and, alarmingly, that underutilization has actually worsened in recent years (3).

Inherent to the use of registry data is the assumption that receipt of RT is correctly ascertained by the reporting registry. Several prior studies have generally suggested good accuracy of RT ascertainment by SEER registries when compared against the gold standard of Medicare billing claims 7, 8. However, such studies focused on the 9 to 13 SEER registries available at that time and did not evaluate the accuracy of RT coding in the expanded SEER program, which now includes 16 registries with linked Medicare billing claims, or in other population-based registries that do not participate in SEER. As registry data continue to be used by investigators to evaluate RT utilization and outcomes, a contemporary evaluation of the accuracy of RT coding is warranted.

Accordingly, we sought to evaluate the accuracy of registry RT ascertainment against the gold standard of Medicare billing claims in a contemporary cohort of breast cancer patients. To accomplish this, we used linked SEER–Medicare data, representing approximately 26% of the US population, to (1) determine underascertainment, sensitivity, specificity, and κ for registry RT receipt, and (2) identify factors associated with underascertainment of RT. In addition, we partnered with the three largest non-SEER registries—Florida, New York, and Texas, representing an additional 20% of the United States—to compare RT ascertainment among these registries to the SEER registries.

Section snippets

Data sources

The SEER Program of the National Cancer Institute assembles information on cancer incidence and survival from 16 population-based tumor registries, with a case ascertainment ratio of 97% (9). Data collected include patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment, including RT receipt, during the initial treatment course. The National Cancer Institute has linked SEER records to the medical billing claims of Medicare beneficiaries. Medicare covers inpatient and outpatient medical care

Descriptive characteristics of SEER–Medicare cohort

Of 73,077 patients identified in the SEER–Medicare cohort, median age at diagnosis was 75 years, 56.9% (n=41,581) underwent BCS, 37.8% (n=27,657) underwent mastectomy, and 18.0% (n=13,123) received chemotherapy (Table 1).

A total of 41.6% (n=30,386) of patients were coded as receiving RT according to SEER registries, versus 49.3% (n=36,047) according to Medicare claims (P<.001) (Table 1). For the entire cohort, underascertainment of RT was 18.7% (n=6,738/29,309, 95% confidence interval [CI]

Discussion

In this unique cohort of breast cancer patients representing nearly half the US population, we found significant variation in the ascertainment of RT by cancer registries. Whereas some registries demonstrated extremely high sensitivity, exceeding 90%, sensitivity for other registries was below 60%. Further, we found that the original SEER-9 registries had the most accurate data, while two non-SEER registries had the least accurate data. In addition, we found that rural residence and increased

Acknowledgment

The authors thank the Applied Research Program, National Cancer Institute; the Office of Research, Development and Information, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; Information Management Services, Inc.; and the SEER Program tumor registries for the creation of the SEER–Medicare database. They also thank the staffs of the Texas, Florida, and New York registries for their assistance in acquisition of data, for which they received no compensation.

References (20)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (60)

View all citing articles on Scopus

B.D.S. and S.H.G. are supported by Grant RP101207 from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. This study was also supported in part by the US Department of Health and Human Services National Cancer Institute (Grants CA16672 and T32CA77050). A portion of this work was also supported by a philanthropic contribution from Ann and Clarence Cazalot. M.J.S. is supported by Cooperative Agreement S3888 from the Association of Schools of Public Health/Centers for Disease Control supporting the New York–Medicare linkage.

This study used the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare database. The interpretation and reporting of these data are the sole responsibility of the authors.

Conflict of interest: B.D.S. receives research support from Varian Medical Systems, but this support was not used for any portion of the present study.

View full text