Show simple item record

Underascertainment of radiotherapy receipt in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry data

dc.contributor.authorJagsi, Reshmaen_US
dc.contributor.authorAbrahamse, Paulen_US
dc.contributor.authorHawley, Sarah T.en_US
dc.contributor.authorGraff, John J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHamilton, Ann S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKatz, Steven J.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-03-16T15:59:55Z
dc.date.available2013-03-04T15:29:54Zen_US
dc.date.issued2012-01-15en_US
dc.identifier.citationJagsi, Reshma; Abrahamse, Paul; Hawley, Sarah T.; Graff, John J.; Hamilton, Ann S.; Katz, Steven J. (2012). "Underascertainment of radiotherapy receipt in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry data ." Cancer 118(2): 333-341. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/90319>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0008-543Xen_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-0142en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/90319
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry data have been used to suggest underuse and disparities in receipt of radiotherapy. Prior studies have cautioned that SEER may underascertain radiotherapy but lacked adequate representation to assess whether underascertainment varies by geography or patient sociodemographic characteristics. The authors sought to determine rates and correlates of underascertainment of radiotherapy in recent SEER data. METHODS: The authors evaluated data from 2290 survey respondents with nonmetastatic breast cancer, aged 20 to 79 years, diagnosed from June of 2005 to February 2007 in Detroit and Los Angeles and reported to SEER registries (73% response rate). Survey responses regarding treatment and sociodemographic factors were merged with SEER data. The authors compared radiotherapy receipt as reported by patients versus SEER records. The authors then assessed correlates of radiotherapy underascertainment in SEER. RESULTS: Of 1292 patients who reported receiving radiotherapy, 273 were coded as not receiving radiotherapy in SEER (underascertained). Underascertainment was more common in Los Angeles than in Detroit (32.0% vs 11.25%, P < .001). On multivariate analysis, radiotherapy underascertainment was significantly associated in each registry (Los Angeles, Detroit) with stage ( P = .008, P = .026), income ( P < .001, P = .050), mastectomy receipt ( P < .001, P < .001), chemotherapy receipt ( P < .001, P = .045), and diagnosis at a hospital that was not accredited by the American College of Surgeons ( P < .001, P < .001). In Los Angeles, additional significant variables included younger age ( P < .001), nonprivate insurance ( P < .001), and delayed receipt of radiotherapy ( P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: SEER registry data as currently collected may not be an appropriate source for documentation of rates of radiotherapy receipt or investigation of geographic variation in the radiation treatment of breast cancer. Cancer 2011;. © 2011 American Cancer Society. This study found that the Los Angeles Cancer Surveillance Program, among the largest Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries, coded that radiation was not received in nearly a third of cases in which breast cancer patients themselves reported radiation receipt, whereas ascertainment of radiation receipt was much more complete in another large SEER registry, that of the Metropolitan Detroit Cancer Surveillance System. SEER registry data as currently collected may not be an appropriate source for documentation of rates of radiotherapy receipt or geographic disparities.en_US
dc.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.subject.otherSEERen_US
dc.subject.otherRadiation Therapyen_US
dc.subject.otherData Qualityen_US
dc.subject.otherAscertainmenten_US
dc.subject.otherBreast Canceren_US
dc.titleUnderascertainment of radiotherapy receipt in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry dataen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelOncology and Hematologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Healthen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, UHB2C490, SPC 5010, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109‐5010en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumGeneral Medicine Division, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Californiaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherCancer Institute of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jerseyen_US
dc.identifier.pmid21717446en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/90319/1/26295_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/cncr.26295en_US
dc.identifier.sourceCanceren_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVirnig B, Warren JL, Cooper GS, et al. Studying radiation therapy using SEER‐Medicare linked data. Med Care. 2002; 40 ( 8 suppl ): IV‐49 ‐ IV‐54.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Cancer Institute. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results. About SEER. Available at: http://seer.cancer. gov/about/. Accessed on July 30, 2010.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYu JB, Gross CP, Wilson LD, Smith BD. NCI SEER public‐use data: applications and limitations in oncology research. Oncology. 2009; 23: 288 ‐ 295.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFarrow DC, Hunt WC, Samet JM. Geographic variation in the treatment of localized breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1992; 326: 1097 ‐ 1101.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNattinger AB, Hoffman RG, Kneusel RT, Schapira MM. Relation between appropriateness of primary therapy for early‐stage breast carcinoma and increased use of breast‐conserving surgery. Lancet. 2000; 356: 1148 ‐ 1153.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2010. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2010/SPCSM_2010_maindoc. pdf Accessed February 11, 2011.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBickell NA, Chassin MR. Determining the quality of breast cancer care: do tumor registries measure up? Ann Intern Med. 2000; 132: 705 ‐ 710.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMalin JL, Kahn KL, Adams J, et al. Validity of cancer registry data for measuring the quality of breast cancer care. J Nat Cancer Inst. 2002; 94: 835 ‐ 844.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMartinez SR, Beal SH, Chen SL, et al. Disparities in the use of radiation therapy in patients with local‐regionally advanced breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 78: 787 ‐ 792.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFreedman RA, He Y, Winer EP, Keating NL. Trends in racial and age disparities in definitive local therapy of early‐stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 713 ‐ 719.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDu XL, Gor BJ. Racial disparities and trends in radiation therapy after breast‐conserving surgery for early‐stage breast cancer in women, 1992 to 2002. Ethn Dis. 2007; 17: 122 ‐ 128.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorrow M, Jagsi R, Alderman A, et al. Surgeon recommendations and receipt of mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer. JAMA. 2009; 302: 1551 ‐ 1556.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHawley ST, Griggs JJ, Hamilton AS, et al. Decision involvement and receipt of mastectomy among racially and ethnically diverse breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101: 1 ‐ 11.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHamilton AS, Hofer TP, Hawley ST, et al. Latinas and breast cancer outcomes: population‐based sampling, ethnic identity, and acculturation assessment. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009; 18: 2022 ‐ 2029.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGreene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual (ed 6). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Raven Publishers; 2002.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMarin G, Van Oss Marin B. Research With Hispanic Populations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1991.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDillman DA: Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons; 1997.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDu X, Freeman JL, Goodwin JS. Information on radiation treatment in patients with breast cancer: the advantages of the linked Medicare and SEER data. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999; 52: 463 ‐ 470.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJagsi R, Abrahamse P, Morrow M, et al. Patterns and correlates of adjuvant radiotherapy receipt after lumpectomy and after mastectomy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 2396 ‐ 2403.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDragun AE, Huang B, Tucker TC, Spanos WJ. Disparities in the application of adjuvant radiotherapy after breast‐conserving surgery for early stage breast cancer. Cancer. 2011; 117: 2590 ‐ 2598.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNorth American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Certification Criteria. Available at: http://www.naaccr.org/Certification/Criteria.aspx. Accessed on February 10, 2011.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHamilton AS, Albertsen PC, Johnson, TK et al. Trends in treatment of localized prostate cancer using supplemented cancer registry data. BJU Int. 2011; 107: 576 ‐ 584.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHarlan LC, Abrams J, Warren JL, et al. Adjuvant therapy for breast cancer: practice patterns of community physicians. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20: 1809 ‐ 1817.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLiu Y, Diamant A, Thind A, Maly RC. Validity of self‐reports of breast cancer treatment in low‐income, medically underserved women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010; 119: 745 ‐ 751.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMaunsell E, Drolet M, Ouhoummane N, Robert J. Breast cancer survivors accurately reported key treatment and prognostic characteristics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58: 364 ‐ 369.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePhillips KA, Milne RL, Buys S, et al. Agreement between self‐reported breast cancer treatment and medical records in a population‐based breast cancer family registry. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 4679 ‐ 4686.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceThornton M, ed. Standards for Cancer Registries, Volume II: Data Standards and Data Dictionary, Record Layout Version 12.1. 15th ed. Springfield, IL: North American Association of Central Cancer Registries; 2010.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.