title: Ascertaining invasive breast cancer cases; the validity of administrative and self-reported data sources in Australia.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Statutory State-based cancer registries are considered the 'gold standard' for researchers identifying cancer cases in Australia, but research using self-report or administrative health datasets (e.g. hospital records) may not have linkage to a Cancer Registry and need to identify cases. This study investigated the validity of administrative and self-reported data compared with records in a State-wide Cancer Registry in identifying invasive breast cancer cases.
  
  
  METHODS
  Cases of invasive breast cancer recorded on the New South Wales (NSW) Cancer Registry between July 2004 and December 2008 (the study period) were identified for women in the 45 and Up Study. Registry cases were separately compared with suspected cases ascertained from: i) administrative hospital separations records; ii) outpatient medical service claims; iii) prescription medicines claims; and iv) the 45 and Up Study baseline survey. Ascertainment flags included diagnosis codes, surgeries (e.g. lumpectomy), services (e.g. radiotherapy), and medicines used for breast cancer, as well as self-reported diagnosis. Positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity and specificity were calculated for flags within individual datasets, and for combinations of flags across multiple datasets.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Of 143,010 women in the 45 and Up Study, 2039 (1.4%) had an invasive breast tumour recorded on the NSW Cancer Registry during the study period. All of the breast cancer flags examined had high specificity (>97.5%). Of the flags from individual datasets, hospital-derived 'lumpectomy and diagnosis of invasive breast cancer' and '(lumpectomy or mastectomy) and diagnosis of invasive breast cancer' had the greatest PPV (89% and 88%, respectively); the later having greater sensitivity (59% and 82%, respectively). The flag with the highest sensitivity and PPV ≥ 85% was 'diagnosis of invasive breast cancer' (both 86%). Self-reported breast cancer diagnosis had a PPV of 50% and sensitivity of 85%, and breast radiotherapy had a PPV of 73% and a sensitivity of 58% compared with Cancer Registry records. The combination of flags with the greatest PPV and sensitivity was '(lumpectomy or mastectomy) and (diagnosis of invasive breast cancer or breast radiotherapy)' (PPV and sensitivity 83%).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In the absence of Cancer Registry data, administrative and self-reported data can be used to accurately identify cases of invasive breast cancer for sample identification, removing cases from a sample, or risk adjustment. Invasive breast cancer can be accurately identified using hospital-derived diagnosis alone or in combination with surgeries and breast radiotherapy.
authors: Centre for Health Services Research, School of Population Health, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia. anna.kemp@uwa.edu.au
authors: Anna
authors: A
authors: Kemp
authors: David B
authors: DB
authors: Preen
authors: Christobel
authors: C
authors: Saunders
authors: C D'Arcy J
authors: CD
authors: Holman
authors: Max
authors: M
authors: Bulsara
authors: Kris
authors: K
authors: Rogers
authors: Elizabeth E
authors: EE
authors: Roughead
mesh_terms: D018931:Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal / Q000627:therapeutic use; D001315:Australia; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000453:epidemiology* / Q000532:radiotherapy / Q000601:surgery; D003625:Data Collection / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D006753:Hospital Records; D006801:Humans; D038801:International Classification of Diseases; D008408:Mastectomy; D015412:Mastectomy, Segmental; D012042:Registries; D057566:Self Report; D013629:Tamoxifen / Q000627:therapeutic use
chemical_list: D018931:Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; D013629:Tamoxifen
references: Am J Epidemiol. 2006 Aug 15;164(4):385-90
references: 16760225
references: Int J Epidemiol. 2008 Oct;37(5):941-7
references: 17881411
references: Health Econ. 2000 Mar;9(2):95-107
references: 10721012
references: Am J Epidemiol. 1998 May 15;147(10):969-77
references: 9596475
references: Med J Aust. 2011 Aug 15;195(4):198-202
references: 21843123
references: Aust N Z J Public Health. 1998 Dec;22(7):765-70
references: 9889440
references: BMJ. 1994 Jul 9;309(6947):102
references: 8038641
references: BMJ Open. 2012 May 26;2(3):
references: 22637491
references: Cancer Epidemiol. 2011 Dec;35(6):e75-80
references: 21474409
references: Health Serv Res. 2004 Dec;39(6 Pt 1):1733-49
references: 15533184
references: Health Serv Res. 2010 Oct;45(5 Pt 2):1468-88
references: 21054367
references: J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 Jun;53(6):605-14
references: 10880779
references: Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009 Dec;118(3):583-92
references: 19301119
references: Ann Oncol. 2012 Sep;23(9):2422-2428
references: 22351742
references: Health Inf Manag. 1997 Mar-May;27(1):31-8
references: 10169442
references: BMJ. 1994 Jun 11;308(6943):1552
references: 8019315
references: Tumori. 2011 Jul-Aug;97(4):428-35
references: 21989429
references: Am J Epidemiol. 2001 Feb 1;153(3):299-306
references: 11157418