<i>Retracted</i>: Development and validation of algorithms to differentiate ductal carcinoma in situ from invasive breast cancer within administrative claims data

Hirth, Jacqueline M.; Hatch, Sandra S.; Lin, Yu Li; Giordano, Sharon H.; Silva, H. Colleen; Kuo, Yong Fang

doi:10.1002/cncr.31393

Cited by 2 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, a previous study reported that ductal carcinoma in situ was frequently miscoded as invasive breast cancer. 13 Japanese clinical guidelines indicate that the coverage for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) applies when an area including the lesion is resected for early cancer or adenoma. 40 to an underestimation of true-positive cases, and in turn, lower sensitivity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous validation studies have used algorithms to identify stomach, 9,38 colorectal, 6,8,9,39 breast, 6,8,9,12–16 lung, 6,8,9 prostate 8 and bladder cancer 22 . In the Pharmaceutical Assistance Contract for the Elderly (PACE) study, Setoguchi et al 9 examined the sensitivity, specificity and PPV of claims‐based definitions for the incidence for six cancers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, a major concern for developing various types of research studies is the validity of identifying cancer cases using claims data originally collected for billing purposes rather than for research, because misclassification of the diagnosis of outcomes for incident cancer can introduce substantial bias and compromise the validity of findings. [3][4][5] Earlier validation studies have evaluated the validity of sitespecific cancer incidence for colorectal, [6][7][8][9] breast, [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] lung, [6][7][8][9]18 prostate 8,19 and other cancers 9,[20][21][22] using claims data. Given that few studies 17,[23][24][25] have evaluated the validity of claims-based definitions for cancer in Japan, whether or not claims-based definitions are valid for diagnosing total and site-specific cancers remains to be clarified.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While another validation study 24 examined the use of the diagnosis procedure combination (DPC) for the diagnosis of 15 types of cancer, it only assessed the concordance and PPV for diagnosis among inpatients. Furthermore, many of the previous studies assessed the validity for site-specific cancer among participants aged 65 years and older, 6,8,9,12,13,16,19 which limits the generalizability to younger adult populations. Extending the applicability to identifying total cancer incidence and the generalizability to younger participants in the general population would drastically accelerate clinical cancer research using claims data.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Earlier validation studies have evaluated the validity of site‐specific cancer incidence for colorectal, 6–9 breast, 6–17 lung, 6–9,18 prostate 8,19 and other cancers 9,20–22 using claims data. Given that few studies 17,23–25 have evaluated the validity of claims‐based definitions for cancer in Japan, whether or not claims‐based definitions are valid for diagnosing total and site‐specific cancers remains to be clarified.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Validity of claims data for identifying cancer incidence in the Japan public health center‐based prospective study for the next generation

Ihira¹,

Goto

Yamagishi

et al. 2022

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study determined the validity of claims‐based definitions for identifying the incidence of total and site‐specific cancers in a population‐based cohort study. Methods Claims data were obtained for 21 946 participants aged 40–74 years enrolled in the Japan Public Health Center‐based Prospective Study for the Next Generation. We defined total and site‐specific cancer incidence using combinations of codes from claims data, including diagnosis and procedure codes for cancer therapy. Data from the cancer registry were used as the gold standard to evaluate validity. Results Among 21 946 participants, 454 total, 89 stomach, 67 colorectal, 51 lung, 39 breast and 99 prostate invasive cancer cases were newly diagnosed in the cancer registry. For invasive cancer, the sensitivity and specificity of the definition that combined codes for diagnosis and procedures for cancer therapy were 87.0% and 99.4% for total, 88.8% and 99.9% for stomach, 80.6% and 99.9% for colorectal, 86.3% and 99.9% for lung, 100% and 99.9% for breast and 91.9% and 99.9% for prostate cancer, respectively. Furthermore, for invasive and/or in situ cancer, the sensitivity and specificity of the definition were 84.5% and 99.5% for total, 66.7% and 99.9% for colorectal and 100% and 99.9% for breast cancer. Conclusions Our findings suggest that claims‐based definitions using diagnosis and procedure codes generally have high validity for total, stomach, lung, breast and prostate cancer incidence, but may underestimate colorectal cancer incidence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Validity of claims data for identifying cancer incidence in the Japan public health center‐based prospective study for the next generation

Ihira¹,

Goto

Yamagishi

et al. 2022

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“Development and validation of algorithms to differentiate ductal carcinoma in situ from invasive breast cancer within administrative claims data” by Hirth JM, Hatch SS, Lin Y, Giordano SH, Silva HC, Kuo Y.

2019

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The above article, published in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) on 18 April 2018, has been retracted by agreement of the authors; the journal Editor‐in‐Chief, Fadlo R. Khuri; Wiley Periodicals, Inc.; and the American Cancer Society. After publication, the authors determined that an error was made in the article, for which they sincerely apologize. They first notified Cancer of the error on May 16, 2018, and after providing additional information requested by the journal on July 13, 2018, and August 15, 2018, the authors and Cancer editors determined that the article should be retracted. There was no institutional investigation related to this study. No other papers by the author group are affected by this retraction. Cancer has determined that the mistakes were honest error. It was decided that retraction of this article was necessary because 297 of the 1244 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) cases used as the gold standard reference in the study sample were other types of carcinoma in situ of the breast. Therefore, at the last step of algorithm 1 in the training dataset, 514 (77.2%) of the 666 original true positives had been diagnosed with DCIS in the Texas Cancer Registry (TCR) data. For algorithm 2, 339 out of the original 424, or 80.0%, had been diagnosed with DCIS in the TCR data. Unfortunately, the ICD‐9 code 233.0, which the authors misstated as DCIS rather than as carcinoma in situ of the breast, does not differentiate between the different types of carcinoma in situ of the breast. Therefore, the algorithms in the original publication actually captured all cases of in situ breast cancers and would be better described as algorithms to determine any in situ cancer of the breast. When the authors discovered their error, they ran the algorithm with DCIS cases only, and there was a significant drop in positive predictive value of their algorithm to detect only DCIS. As a result, the authors determined their algorithms do not differentiate DCIS from other breast carcinoma in situ cases well. This could cause overestimations of undertreatment for DCIS using these algorithms, as other types of carcinoma in situ of the breast have different treatment recommendations. Therefore, the authors determined, along with the editors of Cancer, that this paper should be retracted. Reference Hirth JM, Hatch SS, Lin Y, Giordano SH, Silva HC, Kuo Y. Development and validation of algorithms to differentiate ductal carcinoma in situ from invasive breast cancer within administrative claims data. Cancer 2018 Jul 1;124(13): 2815‐23. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31393.

show abstract

Retracted: Development and validation of algorithms to differentiate ductal carcinoma in situ from invasive breast cancer within administrative claims data

Abstract: DCIS frequently is miscoded as invasive breast cancer, and thus the proposed algorithms are useful to examine DCIS outcomes using data sets not linked to cancer registries. Cancer 2018;124:2815-2823. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Cited by 2 publications

References 14 publications

Validity of claims data for identifying cancer incidence in the Japan public health center‐based prospective study for the next generation

Validity of claims data for identifying cancer incidence in the Japan public health center‐based prospective study for the next generation

“Development and validation of algorithms to differentiate ductal carcinoma in situ from invasive breast cancer within administrative claims data” by Hirth JM, Hatch SS, Lin Y, Giordano SH, Silva HC, Kuo Y.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About