Identifying Recurrences Among Non-Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Using National Health Data Registries: Validation and Optimization of a Registry-Based Algorithm in a Modern Danish Cohort
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S396140
2023-02-28
Clinical Epidemiology
Abstract:Jesper Nors, 1, 2, &ast Trine Block Mattesen, 1, &ast Deirdre Cronin-Fenton, 3 Aurélie Mailhac, 3 Jesper Bertram Bramsen, 1, 2 Kåre Andersson Gotschalck, 2, 4 Rune Erichsen, 2, 3, 5 Claus Lindbjerg Andersen 1, 2 1 Department of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; 2 Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; 3 Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; 4 Department of Surgery, Horsens Regional Hospital, Horsens, Denmark; 5 Department of Surgery, Randers Regional Hospital, Horsens, Denmark &astThese authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence: Claus Lindbjerg Andersen, Department of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, Aarhus N, DK-8200, Denmark, Tel +45 78455319, Email Purpose: Colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence is not routinely recorded in Danish health data registries. Here, we aimed to revalidate a registry-based algorithm to identify recurrences in a contemporary cohort and to investigate the accuracy of estimating the time to recurrence (TTR). Patients and Methods: We ascertained data on 1129 patients operated for UICC TNM stage I–III CRC during 2012– 2017 registered in the CRC biobank at the Department of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. Individual-level data were linked with data from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database, Danish Cancer Registry, Danish National Registry of Patients, and Danish Pathology Registry. The algorithm identified recurrence based on diagnosis codes of local recurrence or metastases, the receipt of chemotherapy, or a pathological tissue assessment code of recurrence more than 180 days after CRC surgery. A subgroup was selected for validation of the algorithm using medical record reviews as a reference standard. Results: We found a 3-year cumulative recurrence rate of 20% (95% CI: 17– 22%). Manual medical record review identified 80 recurrences in the validation cohort of 522 patients. The algorithm detected recurrence with 94% sensitivity (75/80; 95% CI: 86– 98%) and 98% specificity (431/442; 95% CI: 96– 99%). The positive and negative predictive values of the algorithm were 87% (95% CI: 78– 93%) and 99% (95% CI: 97– 100%), respectively. The median difference in TTR (TTR Medical_chart -TTR algorithm ) was − 8 days (IQR: − 21 to +3 days). Restricting the algorithm to chemotherapy codes from oncology departments increased the positive predictive value from 87% to 94% without changing the negative predictive value (99%). Conclusion: The algorithm detected recurrence and TTR with high precision in this contemporary cohort. Restriction to chemotherapy codes from oncology departments using department classifications improves the algorithm. The algorithm is suitable for use in future observational studies. Keywords: time to recurrence, surveillance, chemotherapy, oncology Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents a significant health burden worldwide. At the time of diagnosis, about 75% of the patients present with non-distant metastatic disease (UICC TNM stage I–III) and are eligible for surgery with curative intent. 1 Still, an estimated ~25% of the patients experience recurrence. Between 70% and 90% of the recurrences are detected within the first 3 years after surgery. 2–9 In Denmark and many other countries, CRC recurrence is not recorded routinely in clinical databases or nationwide healthcare registries. Therefore, Lash et al developed and validated an algorithm combining data from different Danish registries to identify CRC recurrences for the period 2001–2011. 10 The algorithm detected recurrence with a sensitivity of 95%, specificity of 97%, positive-predictive value of 86%, and negative predictive value of 99%. 10 However, the predictive performance of the algorithm may have changed since 2011 because of improvements in care and, consequently, changes in recurrence risk. Changes in care include, eg, the implementation of central vascular ligation, complete mesocolic excision, increased lymph node yield, 11 implementation of population-based CRC screening, 12 and standardization of diagnostic CT-imaging. 13 In addition, the algorithm has not previously been validated with regard to time to recurrence (TTR). TTR is important when using the algorithm for time-to-event analysis. Finally, because the algorithm includes codes for chemotherapy that are also used outside the oncology setting (for exampl -Abstract Truncated-
public, environmental & occupational health