Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Montrer: 20 | 50 | 100
Résultats 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrer
Plus de filtres











Base de données
Gamme d'année
1.
JCO Clin Cancer Inform ; 7: e2300063, 2023 Sep.
Article de Anglais | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37910824

RÉSUMÉ

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.


Sujet(s)
Dossiers médicaux électroniques , Tumeurs du poumon , Humains , Adulte d'âge moyen , Sujet âgé , Sujet âgé de 80 ans ou plus , Tumeurs du poumon/diagnostic , Tumeurs du poumon/épidémiologie , Dépistage précoce du cancer/méthodes , Fumer/effets indésirables , Fumer/épidémiologie , Poumon
2.
Med Care ; 61(10): 665-673, 2023 10 01.
Article de Anglais | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37582296

RÉSUMÉ

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.


Sujet(s)
Franchises et coassurance , Tumeurs du poumon , Sujet âgé , Humains , États-Unis , Dépistage précoce du cancer , Medicare (USA) , Études rétrospectives , Tumeurs du poumon/diagnostic
3.
JCO Clin Cancer Inform ; 3: 1-10, 2019 09.
Article de Anglais | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31487201

RÉSUMÉ

PURPOSE: To evaluate health care systems for the availability of population-level data on the frequency of use and results of clinical molecular marker tests to inform precision cancer care. METHODS: We assessed cancer-related molecular marker test data availability across 12 US health care systems in the Cancer Research Network. Overall, these systems provide care to a diverse population of more than 12 million people in the United States. We performed qualitative analyses of test data availability for five blood-based protein, nine germline, and 14 tissue-based tumor marker tests in each health care system's electronic health record and tumor registry using key informants, test code lists, and manual review of data types and output. We then performed quantitative analyses to estimate the proportion of patients with cancer with test utilization data and results for specific molecular marker tests. RESULTS: Health systems were able to systematically capture population-level data on all five blood protein markers, six of 14 tissue-based tumor markers, and none of the nine germline markers. Successful, systematic data capture was achievable for tests with electronic data feeds for test results (blood protein markers) or through prior manual abstraction by tumor registrars (select tumor-based markers). For test results stored in scanned image files (particularly germline and tumor marker tests), information on which test was performed and test results was not readily accessible in an electronic format. CONCLUSION: Even in health care systems with sophisticated electronic health records, there were few codified data elements available for evaluating precision cancer medicine test use and results at the population level. Health care organizations should establish standards for electronic reporting of precision medicine tests to expedite cancer research and facilitate the implementation of precision medicine approaches.


Sujet(s)
Dossiers médicaux électroniques , Tumeurs/épidémiologie , Marqueurs biologiques tumoraux , Collecte de données , Prestations des soins de santé , Prise en charge de la maladie , Humains , Biopsie liquide , Techniques de diagnostic moléculaire , Tumeurs/diagnostic , Tumeurs/étiologie , Tumeurs/thérapie , Médecine de précision , Surveillance de la santé publique , Recherche , États-Unis/épidémiologie
SÉLECTION CITATIONS
DÉTAIL DE RECHERCHE