Development of an Electronic Health Record-Based Algorithm for Predicting Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility in the Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Research Consortium.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines in the United States recommend LCS for those age 50-80 years with at least 20 pack-years smoking history who currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years. We tested the performance of simple smoking-related criteria derived from electronic health record (EHR) data and developed and tested the performance of a multivariable model in predicting LCS eligibility. METHODS: Analyses were completed within the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Consortium (PROSPR-Lung). In our primary validity analyses, the reference standard LCS eligibility was based on self-reported smoking data collected via survey. Within one PROSPR-Lung health system, we used a training data set and penalized multivariable logistic regression using the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator to select EHR-based variables into the prediction model including demographics, smoking history, diagnoses, and prescription medications. A separate test data set assessed model performance. We also conducted external validation analysis in a separate health system and reported AUC, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy metrics associated with the Youden Index. RESULTS: There were 14,214 individuals with survey data to assess LCS eligibility in primary analyses. The overall performance for assigning LCS eligibility status as measured by the AUC values at the two health systems was 0.940 and 0.938. At the Youden Index cutoff value, performance metrics were as follows: accuracy, 0.855 and 0.895; sensitivity, 0.886 and 0.920; specificity, 0.896 and 0.850; PPV, 0.357 and 0.444; and NPV, 0.988 and 0.992. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that health systems can use an EHR-derived multivariable prediction model to aid in the identification of those who may be eligible for LCS.

Individuals Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening Less Likely to Receive Screening When Enrolled in Health Plans With Deductibles.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and commercial insurance plans began covering lung cancer screening (LCS) without patient cost-sharing for all plans. We explore the impact of enrolling into a deductible plan on the utilization of LCS services despite having no out-of-pocket cost requirement. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed data from the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Consortium. Our cohort included non-Medicare LCS-eligible individuals enrolled in managed care organizations between February 5, 2015, and February 28, 2019. We estimate a series of sequential logistic regression models examining utilization across the sequence of events required for baseline LCS. We report the marginal effects of enrollment into deductible plans compared with enrollment in no-deductible plans. RESULTS: The total effect of deductible plan enrollment was a 1.8 percentage-point (PP) decrease in baseline LCS. Sequential logistic regression results that explore each transition separately indicate deductible plan enrollment was associated with a 4.3 PP decrease in receipt of clinician visit, a 1.7 PP decrease in receipt of LCS order, and a 7.0 PP decrease in receipt of baseline LCS. Reductions persisted across all observable races and ethnicities. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest individuals enrolled in deductible plans are more likely to forgo preventive LCS services despite requiring no out-of-pocket costs. This result may indicate that increased cost-sharing is associated with suboptimal choices to forgo recommended LCS. Alternatively, this effect may indicate individuals enrolling into deductible plans prefer less health care utilization. Patient outreach interventions at the health plan level may improve LCS.

Performance of Cancer Recurrence Algorithms After Coding Scheme Switch From International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision to International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision.

PURPOSE: We previously developed and validated informatic algorithms that used International Classification of Diseases 9th revision (ICD9)-based diagnostic and procedure codes to detect the presence and timing of cancer recurrence (the RECUR Algorithms). In 2015, ICD10 replaced ICD9 as the worldwide coding standard. To understand the impact of this transition, we evaluated the performance of the RECUR Algorithms after incorporating ICD10 codes. METHODS: Using publicly available translation tables along with clinician and other expertise, we updated the algorithms to include ICD10 codes as additional input variables. We evaluated the performance of the algorithms using gold standard recurrence measures associated with a contemporary cohort of patients with stage I to III breast, colorectal, and lung (excluding IIIB) cancer and derived performance measures, including the area under the receiver operating curve, average absolute prediction error, and correct classification rate. These values were compared with the performance measures derived from the validation of the original algorithms. RESULTS: A total of 659 colorectal, 280 lung, and 2,053 breast cancer cases were identified. Area under the receiver operating curve derived from the updated algorithms was 89.0% (95% CI, 82.3% to 95.7%), 88.9% (95% CI, 79.3% to 98.2%), and 80.5% (95% CI, 72.8% to 88.2%) for the colorectal, lung, and breast cancer algorithms, respectively. Average absolute prediction errors for recurrence timing were 2.7 (SE, 11.3%), 2.4 (SE, 10.4%), and 5.6 months (SE, 21.8%), respectively, and timing estimates were within 6 months of actual recurrence for more than 80% of colorectal, more than 90% of lung, and more than 50% of breast cancer cases using the updated algorithm. CONCLUSION: Performance measures derived from the updated and original algorithms had overlapping confidence intervals, suggesting that the ICD9 to ICD10 transition did not affect the RECUR Algorithm performance.

Medical Care Costs for Recurrent versus De Novo Stage IV Cancer by Age at Diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: To address the knowledge gap regarding medical care costs for advanced cancer patients, we compared costs for recurrent versus de novo stage IV breast, colorectal, and lung cancer patients. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Virtual Data Warehouse (VDW) information from three Kaiser Permanente regions: Colorado, Northwest, and Washington. STUDY DESIGN: We identified patients aged ≥21 with de novo or recurrent breast (nde novo  = 352; nrecurrent  = 765), colorectal (nde novo  = 1,072; nrecurrent  = 542), and lung (nde novo  = 4,041; nrecurrent  = 340) cancers diagnosed 2000-2012. We estimated average total monthly and annual costs in the 12 months preceding, month of, and 12 months following the index de novo/recurrence date, stratified by age at diagnosis (<65, ≥65). Generalized linear repeated-measures models controlled for demographics and comorbidity. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In the pre-index period, monthly costs were higher for recurrent than for de novo breast (<65: +$2,431; ≥65: +$1,360), colorectal (<65: +$3,219; ≥65: +$2,247), and lung cancer (<65: +$3,086; ≥65: +$2,260) patients. Conversely, during the index and post-index periods, costs were higher for de novo patients. Average total annual pre-index costs were five- to ninefold higher for recurrent versus de novo patients <65. CONCLUSIONS: Cost differences by type of advanced cancer and by age suggest heterogeneous patterns of care that merit further investigation.

Development, Validation, and Dissemination of a Breast Cancer Recurrence Detection and Timing Informatics Algorithm.

Background: This study developed, validated, and disseminated a generalizable informatics algorithm for detecting breast cancer recurrence and timing using a gold standard measure of recurrence coupled with data derived from a readily available common data model that pools health insurance claims and electronic health records data. Methods: The algorithm has two parts: to detect the presence of recurrence and to estimate the timing of recurrence. The primary data source was the Cancer Research Network Virtual Data Warehouse (VDW). Sixteen potential indicators of recurrence were considered for model development. The final recurrence detection and timing models were determined, respectively, by maximizing the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) and minimizing average absolute error. Detection and timing algorithms were validated using VDW data in comparison with a gold standard recurrence capture from a third site in which recurrences were validated through chart review. Performance of this algorithm, stratified by stage at diagnosis, was compared with other published algorithms. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Detection model AUROCs were 0.939 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.917 to 0.955) in the training data set (n = 3370) and 0.956 (95% CI = 0.944 to 0.971) and 0.900 (95% CI = 0.872 to 0.928), respectively, in the two validation data sets (n = 3370 and 3961, respectively). Timing models yielded average absolute prediction errors of 12.6% (95% CI = 10.5% to 14.5%) in the training data and 11.7% (95% CI = 9.9% to 13.5%) and 10.8% (95% CI = 9.6% to 12.2%) in the validation data sets, respectively, and were statistically significantly lower by 12.6% (95% CI = 8.8% to 16.5%, P < .001) than those estimated using previously reported timing algorithms. Similar covariates were included in both detection and timing algorithms but differed substantially from previous studies. Conclusions: Valid and reliable detection of recurrence using data derived from electronic medical records and insurance claims is feasible. These tools will enable extensive, novel research on quality, effectiveness, and outcomes for breast cancer patients and those who develop recurrence.

Algorithm to Identify Systemic Cancer Therapy Treatment Using Structured Electronic Data.

PURPOSE: With the shift in the majority of oncology clinical care in the United States from paper records to electronic health records, researchers need efficient and validated processes to obtain accurate data about the entire treatment history of patients diagnosed with cancer. The objective of this study was to develop and validate an algorithm that is agnostic to the source of data but that can identify specific regimens in the entire course of systemic therapy treatment for patients diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer. METHODS: A cohort of patients with incident breast, colorectal, and lung cancer were randomly distributed into six groups. The algorithm was iteratively modified, and the performance was assessed until no additional modifications could be identified in the first three groups. The performance of the algorithm was confirmed in the three groups that remained. RESULTS: The final model produced ranges of sensitivity between 97.2% and 100% for first-course systemic therapy across all cancers, with a false-positive rate of 0%. The algorithm matched the exact number of courses and the exact regimens of systemic therapy agents as captured by infusion, pharmacy, and procedure electronic medical record data for all courses of therapy 88% to 100% of the time. CONCLUSION: Use of our validated algorithm that characterizes entire courses of systemic therapy treatment in patients diagnosed with breast, colorectal, and lung cancer will allow researchers in a variety of settings to conduct comparative effectiveness studies related to the uptake, safety, outcomes, and costs associated with the use of both novel and standard regimens.