Using Health Insurance Claims Data to Assess Long-term Disease Progression in a Prostate Cancer Cohort

Overview

Journal Prostate

Date 2022 Jul 26

PMID 35880605

Authors

Saira Khan

Sanah Vohra

Laura Farnan

Shekinah N C Elmore

Khadijah Toumbou

Madhav K C

Elizabeth T H Fontham

Edward S Peters

James L Mohler

Jeannette T Bensen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Long-term population-based cohort studies of men diagnosed with prostate cancer are limited. However, adverse outcomes can occur many years after treatment. Herein, we aim to assess the utility of using claims data to identify prostate cancer progression 10-15 years after diagnosis.

Methods: The study population was derived from the North Carolina-Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PCaP). PCaP-North Carolina (NC) included 1031 men diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2004 to 2009. An initial follow-up with a survey and manual medical record abstraction occurred from 2008 to 2011 (Follow-up 1). Herein, we extended this follow-up with linkage to healthcare claims data from North Carolina (2011-2017) and a second, supplementary 10-year follow-up survey (2018-2020) (Follow-up 2). Vital statistics data also were utilized. Long-term oncological progression was determined using these data sources in combination with expert clinical input.

Results: Among the 1031 baseline PCaP-NC participants, 652 were linked to medical claims. Forty-two percent of the men had insurance coverage for the entire 72 months of follow-up. In addition, 275 baseline participants completed the supplementary 10-year follow-up survey. Using all sources of follow-up data, we identified a progression event in 259 of 1031 (25%) men with more than 10 years of follow-up data after diagnosis.

Conclusions: Understanding long-term clinical outcomes is essential for improving the lives of prostate cancer survivors. However, access and utility of long-term clinical outcomes with claims alone remain a challenge due to individualized agreements required with each insurer for data access, lack of detailed clinical information, and gaps in insurance coverage. We were able to utilize claims data to determine long-term progression due to several unique advantages that included the availability of detailed baseline clinical characteristics and treatments, detailed manually abstracted clinical data at 5 years of follow-up, vital statistics data, and a supplementary 10-year follow-up survey.

References

Khan S, Cai J, Nielsen M, Troester M, Mohler J, Fontham E . The Association of Diabetes and Obesity With Prostate Cancer Progression: HCaP-NC. Prostate. 2017; 77(8):878-887. PMC: 5695861. DOI: 10.1002/pros.23342. View

Cheng Y, Zhuo L, Pan Y, Wang S, Zong J, Sun W . Treatment patterns of prostate cancer with bone metastasis in Beijing: A real-world study using data from an administrative claims database. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2019; 28(11):1501-1509. PMC: 6900185. DOI: 10.1002/pds.4874. View

Liu D, Kuai Y, Zhu R, Zhou C, Tao Y, Han W . Prognosis of prostate cancer and bone metastasis pattern of patients: a SEER-based study and a local hospital based study from China. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):9104. PMC: 7272631. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-64073-6. View

Bernstein A, Shoag J, Golan R, Halpern J, Schaeffer E, Hsu W . Contemporary Incidence and Outcomes of Prostate Cancer Lymph Node Metastases. J Urol. 2017; 199(6):1510-1517. PMC: 6530582. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.12.048. View

Siegel D, ONeil M, Richards T, Dowling N, Weir H . Prostate Cancer Incidence and Survival, by Stage and Race/Ethnicity - United States, 2001-2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020; 69(41):1473-1480. PMC: 7561091. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6941a1. View

Lee C, Light A, Alaa A, Thurtle D, van der Schaar M, Gnanapragasam V . Application of a novel machine learning framework for predicting non-metastatic prostate cancer-specific mortality in men using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Lancet Digit Health. 2021; 3(3):e158-e165. DOI: 10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30314-9. View

Siegel R, Miller K, Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016; 66(1):7-30. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21332. View

Cary K, Punnen S, Odisho A, Litwin M, Saigal C, Cooperberg M . Nationally representative trends and geographic variation in treatment of localized prostate cancer: the Urologic Diseases in America project. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015; 18(2):149-54. PMC: 4430397. DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2015.3. View

Alzubi A, Watzlaf V, Sheridan P . Electronic Health Record (EHR) Abstraction. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2021; 18(Spring):1g. PMC: 8120673. View

10.

Weinberg C, Sandler D . Randomized recruitment in case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1991; 134(4):421-32. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116104. View

11.

Gross M, Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Hu J . Assessing Treatment-Related Toxicity Using Administrative Data, Patient-Reported Outcomes, or Physician-Graded Toxicity: Where Is the Truth?. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2019; 29(4):333-337. DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2019.05.007. View

12.

McMahon S, Basak R, Zhou X, Smith A, Song L, Pruthi R . Patient-reported Health Status, Comorbidity Burden, and Prostate Cancer Treatment. Urology. 2020; 149:103-109. PMC: 7940590. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.12.008. View

13.

Albertsen P, Hanley J, Fine J . 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2005; 293(17):2095-101. DOI: 10.1001/jama.293.17.2095. View

14.

Wilkinson A, Brundage M, Siemens R . Approach to primary care follow-up of patients with prostate cancer. Can Fam Physician. 2008; 54(2):204-10. PMC: 2278312. View

15.

Sadetsky N, Elkin E, Latini D, DuChane J, Carroll P . Prostate cancer outcomes among older men: insurance status comparisons results from CaPSURE database. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2007; 11(3):280-7. DOI: 10.1038/sj.pcan.4501015. View

16.

Freedland S, Ke X, Lafeuille M, Romdhani H, Kinkead F, Lefebvre P . Identification of patients with metastatic castration-sensitive or metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer using administrative health claims and laboratory data. Curr Med Res Opin. 2021; 37(4):609-622. DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2021.1879753. View

17.

Roach 3rd M, Hanks G, Thames Jr H, Schellhammer P, Shipley W, Sokol G . Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 65(4):965-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.029. View

18.

Schroeder J, Bensen J, Su L, Mishel M, Ivanova A, Smith G . The North Carolina-Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PCaP): methods and design of a multidisciplinary population-based cohort study of racial differences in prostate cancer outcomes. Prostate. 2006; 66(11):1162-76. DOI: 10.1002/pros.20449. View

19.

Potosky A, Merrill R, Riley G, Taplin S, BARLOW W, Fireman B . Prostate cancer treatment and ten-year survival among group/staff HMO and fee-for-service Medicare patients. Health Serv Res. 1999; 34(2):525-46. PMC: 1089022. View

20.

Hankey B, Feuer E, Clegg L, Hayes R, Legler J, Prorok P . Cancer surveillance series: interpreting trends in prostate cancer--part I: Evidence of the effects of screening in recent prostate cancer incidence, mortality, and survival rates. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999; 91(12):1017-24. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/91.12.1017. View