Development and Validation of Coding Algorithms to Identify Patients with Incident Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in United States Healthcare Claims Data

References

• Beyrer J, Abedtash H, Hornbuckle K, Murray JF. A review of stakeholder recommendations for defining fit-for-purpose real-world evidence algorithms. J Comp Eff Res. 2022;11(7):499–511. doi:10.2217/cer-2022-0006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Cancer Institute [Internet]. Cancer Stat Facts: lung and Bronchus Cancer. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/lungb.html. Accessed November 11, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• United States Preventive Services Task Force [Internet]. Final recommendation statement: lung cancer: screening; 2021. Available from https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/lung-cancer-screening. Accessed November 11, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• American Cancer Society [Internet]. What is lung cancer? Available from: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/lung-cancer/about/what-is.html. Accessed November. 10, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Uno H, Ritzwoller DP, Cronin AM, Carroll NM, Hornbrook MC, Hassett MJ. Determining the time of cancer recurrence using claims or electronic medical record data. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2018;2:1–10. doi:10.1200/CCI.17.00163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abraha I, Montedori A, Serraino D, et al. Accuracy of administrative databases in detecting primary breast cancer diagnoses: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2018;8(7):e019264. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019264
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Walraven C, Austin P. Administrative database research has unique characteristics that can risk biased results. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(2):126–131. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.08.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan AW, Fung K, Tran JM, et al. Application of recursive partitioning to derive and validate a claims-based algorithm for identifying keratinocyte carcinoma (nonmelanoma skin cancer). JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152(10):1122–1127. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.2609
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordstrom BL, Simeone JC, Malley KG, et al. Validation of claims algorithms for progression to metastatic cancer in patients with breast, non-small cell lung, and colorectal cancer. Front Oncol. 2016;1(6):18.
   Google Scholar
• Bergquist SL, Brooks GA, Keating NL, Landrum MB, Rose S. Classifying lung cancer severity with ensemble machine learning in health care claims data. Proc Mach Learn Res. 2017;68:25–38. doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2014.11.005
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Turner RM, Chen YW, Fernandes AW. Validation of a case-finding algorithm for identifying patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in administrative claims databases. Front Pharmacol. 2017;30(8):883. doi:10.3389/fphar.2017.00883
   Google Scholar
• Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services [Internet]. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. HCPCS - General Information. Baltimore (MD). Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/MedHCPCSGenInfo. Accessed August 18, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Nadpara P, Madhavan SS, Tworek C. Guideline-concordant timely lung cancer care and prognosis among elderly patients in the United States: a population-based study. Cancer Epidemiol. 2015;39(6):1136–1144. doi:10.1016/j.canep.2015.06.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong ML, McMurry TL, Stukenborg GJ, et al. Impact of age and comorbidity on treatment of non-small cell lung cancer recurrence following complete resection: a nationally representative cohort study. Lung Cancer. 2016;102:108–117. doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2016.11.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beyrer J, Nelson DR, Sheffield KM, Huang YJ, Ellington T, Hincapie AL. Development and validation of coding algorithms to identify patients with incident lung cancer in United States healthcare claims data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2020;29(11):1465–1479. doi:10.1002/pds.5137
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nattinger AB, Laud PW, Bajorunaite R, Sparapani RA, Freeman JL. An algorithm for the use of Medicare claims data to identify women with incident breast cancer. Health Serv Res. 2004;39(6 Pt 1):1733–1749. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00315.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Comprehensive Cancer Network [Internet]. Plymouth Meeting (PA): national Comprehensive Cancer Network. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/default.aspx. Accessed August. 18, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao Z, Zhang R, Cox J, Duling D, Sarle W. Massively parallel feature selection: an approach based on variance preservation. Mach Learn. 2013;92(1):195–220. doi:10.1007/s10994-013-5373-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan LM, Massaro JM, D’Agostino RB. D’Agostino RB Sr. Presentation of multivariate data for clinical use: the Framingham Study risk score functions. Stat Med. 2004;23(10):1631–1660. doi:10.1002/sim.1742
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Z, Zhang H, Khanal MK. Development of scoring system for risk stratification in clinical medicine: a step-by-step tutorial. Ann Transl Med. 2017;5(21):436. doi:10.21037/atm.2017.08.22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilpin LH, Bau D, Yuan BZ, Bajwa A, Specter M, Kagal L, Explaining explanations: an overview of interpretability of machine learning. In 2018 IEEE 5th International Conference on data science and advanced analytics (DSAA). IEEE. 2018; 80–89.
   Google Scholar
• Lipton ZC. The Mythos of Model Interpretability: in machine learning, the concept of interpretability is both important and slippery. Queue. 2018;16(3):31–57. doi:10.1145/3236386.3241340
   Google Scholar
• Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd ed. New York (NY): John Wiley and Sons; 2015:160–164.
   Google Scholar
• Schumock GT, Lee TA, Pickard AS, et al. Mini-Sentinel methods — alternative methods for health outcomes of interest validation. FDA White Paper; 2013. Available from: https://www.sentinelinitiative.org/sites/default/files/surveillance-tools/validations-literature/Mini-Sentinel-Alternative-Methods-for-Health-Outcomes-of-Interest-Validation_0.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Schulman KL, Berenson K, Tina Shih YC, et al. A checklist for ascertaining study cohorts in oncology health services research using secondary data: report of the ISPOR oncology good outcomes research practices working group. Value Health. 2013;16(4):655–669. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh S, Beyrer J, Zhou X, et al. Development and Evaluation of the Algorithm CErtaInty Tool (ACE‑IT) to Assess Electronic Medical Record and Claims‑based Algorithms’ Fit for Purpose for Safety Outcomes. Drug Saf. 2022. doi:10.1007/s40264-022-01254-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cocoros NM, Arlett P, Dreyer NA, et al. The Certainty Framework for assessing real-world data in studies of medical product safety and effectiveness. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021;109(5):1189–1196. doi:10.1002/cpt.2045
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar