Cargando…

Validation analysis of a composite real‐world mortality endpoint for patients with cancer in the United States

OBJECTIVE: We expanded the previous assessment of a mortality variable suited for real‐world evidence‐focused oncology research. DATA SOURCE: We used a nationwide electronic health record (EHR)‐derived de‐identified database. DATA COLLECTION: We included patients with at least 1 of 18 cancer types b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Qianyi, Gossai, Anala, Monroe, Shirley, Nussbaum, Nathan C., Parrinello, Christina M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8586476/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33998685
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13669
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: We expanded the previous assessment of a mortality variable suited for real‐world evidence‐focused oncology research. DATA SOURCE: We used a nationwide electronic health record (EHR)‐derived de‐identified database. DATA COLLECTION: We included patients with at least 1 of 18 cancer types between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2017. Patient‐level structured data (EHRs, obituaries, and Social Security Death Index) and unstructured EHR data (abstracted) were linked to generate a composite mortality variable. STUDY DESIGN: We benchmarked sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and ±15‐day agreement against the National Death Index (NDI). Real‐world overall survival (rwOS) was estimated using the Kaplan‐Meier method. We performed sensitivity analyses using a smaller patient cohort that underwent next‐generation sequencing testing. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Compared with the NDI across 18 cancer types (overall N = 160 436): sensitivity, 83.9%‐91.5% (17/18 cancer types had sensitivity ≥85.0%); specificity, 93.5%‐99.7%; PPV, 96.3%‐98.3%; NPV, 75.0%‐98.7%; ±15‐day agreement, 95.6%‐97.6%; and median rwOS estimates ranging from 2.8% to 12.7% greater. Sensitivity analysis results (n = 17 540) were consistent with the main analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Across all cancer types analyzed, this composite mortality variable showed high sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and ±15‐day agreement, and yielded median rwOS values modestly overestimated when compared to NDI‐based results.