Advertisement

Cancer Screening Results and Follow-up Using Routinely Collected Electronic Health Data: Estimates for Breast, Colon, and Cervical Cancer Screenings

  • Sudha R. Raman
  • Jeffrey S. Brown
  • Lesley H. Curtis
  • Kevin Haynes
  • James Marshall
  • Pamala A. Pawloski
  • Richard Platt
Concise Research Report

INTRODUCTION

Routinely collected electronic health data about cancer screening and follow-up would be helpful adjuncts for assessing guideline adherence in real-world populations. We compared the use of insurance claims data to other sources to describe (1) abnormal colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and cervical cancer screening results and (2) follow-up after abnormal cancer screening results.

METHODS

We evaluated over 100 million person-years of curated claims data from one large national and 2 smaller regional insurers participating in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory Distributed Research Network (DRN). 1, 2, 3, 4We assessed rates of new colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings and abnormal cancer screening results from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2014, and in 2013, we assessed selected follow-up events (cancer diagnosis, imaging, or biopsy) within 90 days following a new abnormal colorectal, breast, or cervical cancer...

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Stephen Taplin, MD, MPH, for his insightful review of the manuscript and Beth Syat for her support of this project.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund, through a cooperative agreement (U54 AT007748) from the Office of Strategic Coordination within the Office of the NIH Director.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Disclaimer

The views presented here are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

References

  1. 1.
    Robb MA, Racoosin JA, Sherman RE, et al. The US Food and Drug Administration’s Sentinel Initiative: expanding the horizons of medical product safety. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2012;21(Suppl 1):9–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ball R, Robb M, Anderson SA, Dal Pan G. The FDA’s Sentinel Initiative: A comprehensive approach to medical product surveillance. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2016;99:265–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sentinel System. Sentinel Data Quality Assurance Practices. https://www.sentinelinitiative.org/sites/default/files/data/DistributedDatabase/Sentinel_DataQAPractices_Memo.pdf . Accessed 10 Nov 2017.
  4. 4.
    Sentinel System. Distributed database and common data model. https://www.sentinelinitiative.org/sentinel/data/distributed-database-common-data-model. Accessed 25 May 2018.
  5. 5.
    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Recommendations for primary care practice. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Name/recommendations. Accessed 25 May 2018.
  6. 6.
    Tosteson AN, Beaber EF, Tiro J, et al. Variation in screening abnormality rates and follow-up of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening within the PROSPR Consortium. J Gen Intern Med 2016;31:372–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sudha R. Raman
    • 1
  • Jeffrey S. Brown
    • 2
  • Lesley H. Curtis
    • 1
  • Kevin Haynes
    • 3
  • James Marshall
    • 2
  • Pamala A. Pawloski
    • 3
  • Richard Platt
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Population Health Sciences Duke University School of Medicine and Duke Clinical Research InstituteDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Population MedicineHarvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care InstituteBostonUSA
  3. 3.HealthCore, Inc. WilmingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations