Validation of self-reported post-treatment mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors by electronic medical record extraction method

Jasmin A. Tiro, Joanne M. Sanders, L. Aubree Shay, Caitlin C. Murphy, Heidi A. Hamann, L. Kay Bartholomew, Lara S. Savas, Sally W. Vernon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Little is known about validity of self-reported mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors. Most studies have focused on accuracy among healthy, average-risk populations and none have assessed validity by electronic medical record (EMR) extraction method. To assess validity of survivor-reported mammography post-active treatment care, we surveyed all survivors diagnosed 2004–2009 in an academic hospital cancer registry (n = 1441). We used electronic query and manual review to extract EMR data. Concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and report-to-records ratio were calculated by comparing survivors’ self-reports to data from each extraction method. We also assessed average difference in months between mammography dates by source and correlates of concordance. Agreement between the two EMR extraction methods was high (concordance 0.90; kappa 0.70), with electronic query identifying more mammograms. Sensitivity was excellent (0.99) regardless of extraction method; concordance and positive predictive value were good; however, specificity was poor (manual review 0.20, electronic query 0.31). Report-to-records ratios were both over 1 suggesting over-reporting. We observed slight forward telescoping for survivors reporting mammograms 7–12 months prior to survey date. Higher educational attainment and less time since mammogram receipt were associated with greater concordance. Accuracy of survivors’ self-reported mammograms was generally high with slight forward telescoping among those recalling their mammograms between 7 and 12 months prior to the survey date. Results are encouraging for clinicians and practitioners relying on survivor reports for surveillance care delivery and as a screening tool for inclusion in interventions promoting adherence to surveillance guidelines.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)427-434
Number of pages8
JournalBreast Cancer Research and Treatment
Volume151
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 29 2015

Fingerprint

Electronic Health Records
Mammography
Breast Neoplasms
Telescopes
Cancer Care Facilities
Self Report
Registries
Guidelines
Sensitivity and Specificity
Population
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Breast cancer survivors
  • Mammography surveillance
  • Validity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Validation of self-reported post-treatment mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors by electronic medical record extraction method. / Tiro, Jasmin A.; Sanders, Joanne M.; Shay, L. Aubree; Murphy, Caitlin C.; A. Hamann, Heidi; Bartholomew, L. Kay; Savas, Lara S.; Vernon, Sally W.

In: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Vol. 151, No. 2, 29.04.2015, p. 427-434.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tiro, Jasmin A. ; Sanders, Joanne M. ; Shay, L. Aubree ; Murphy, Caitlin C. ; A. Hamann, Heidi ; Bartholomew, L. Kay ; Savas, Lara S. ; Vernon, Sally W. / Validation of self-reported post-treatment mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors by electronic medical record extraction method. In: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2015 ; Vol. 151, No. 2. pp. 427-434.
@article{d738b097e5f3441da8e9b2498c562225,
title = "Validation of self-reported post-treatment mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors by electronic medical record extraction method",
abstract = "Little is known about validity of self-reported mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors. Most studies have focused on accuracy among healthy, average-risk populations and none have assessed validity by electronic medical record (EMR) extraction method. To assess validity of survivor-reported mammography post-active treatment care, we surveyed all survivors diagnosed 2004–2009 in an academic hospital cancer registry (n = 1441). We used electronic query and manual review to extract EMR data. Concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and report-to-records ratio were calculated by comparing survivors’ self-reports to data from each extraction method. We also assessed average difference in months between mammography dates by source and correlates of concordance. Agreement between the two EMR extraction methods was high (concordance 0.90; kappa 0.70), with electronic query identifying more mammograms. Sensitivity was excellent (0.99) regardless of extraction method; concordance and positive predictive value were good; however, specificity was poor (manual review 0.20, electronic query 0.31). Report-to-records ratios were both over 1 suggesting over-reporting. We observed slight forward telescoping for survivors reporting mammograms 7–12 months prior to survey date. Higher educational attainment and less time since mammogram receipt were associated with greater concordance. Accuracy of survivors’ self-reported mammograms was generally high with slight forward telescoping among those recalling their mammograms between 7 and 12 months prior to the survey date. Results are encouraging for clinicians and practitioners relying on survivor reports for surveillance care delivery and as a screening tool for inclusion in interventions promoting adherence to surveillance guidelines.",
keywords = "Breast cancer survivors, Mammography surveillance, Validity",
author = "Tiro, {Jasmin A.} and Sanders, {Joanne M.} and Shay, {L. Aubree} and Murphy, {Caitlin C.} and {A. Hamann}, Heidi and Bartholomew, {L. Kay} and Savas, {Lara S.} and Vernon, {Sally W.}",
year = "2015",
month = "4",
day = "29",
doi = "10.1007/s10549-015-3387-2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "151",
pages = "427--434",
journal = "Breast Cancer Research and Treatment",
issn = "0167-6806",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validation of self-reported post-treatment mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors by electronic medical record extraction method

AU - Tiro, Jasmin A.

AU - Sanders, Joanne M.

AU - Shay, L. Aubree

AU - Murphy, Caitlin C.

AU - A. Hamann, Heidi

AU - Bartholomew, L. Kay

AU - Savas, Lara S.

AU - Vernon, Sally W.

PY - 2015/4/29

Y1 - 2015/4/29

N2 - Little is known about validity of self-reported mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors. Most studies have focused on accuracy among healthy, average-risk populations and none have assessed validity by electronic medical record (EMR) extraction method. To assess validity of survivor-reported mammography post-active treatment care, we surveyed all survivors diagnosed 2004–2009 in an academic hospital cancer registry (n = 1441). We used electronic query and manual review to extract EMR data. Concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and report-to-records ratio were calculated by comparing survivors’ self-reports to data from each extraction method. We also assessed average difference in months between mammography dates by source and correlates of concordance. Agreement between the two EMR extraction methods was high (concordance 0.90; kappa 0.70), with electronic query identifying more mammograms. Sensitivity was excellent (0.99) regardless of extraction method; concordance and positive predictive value were good; however, specificity was poor (manual review 0.20, electronic query 0.31). Report-to-records ratios were both over 1 suggesting over-reporting. We observed slight forward telescoping for survivors reporting mammograms 7–12 months prior to survey date. Higher educational attainment and less time since mammogram receipt were associated with greater concordance. Accuracy of survivors’ self-reported mammograms was generally high with slight forward telescoping among those recalling their mammograms between 7 and 12 months prior to the survey date. Results are encouraging for clinicians and practitioners relying on survivor reports for surveillance care delivery and as a screening tool for inclusion in interventions promoting adherence to surveillance guidelines.

AB - Little is known about validity of self-reported mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors. Most studies have focused on accuracy among healthy, average-risk populations and none have assessed validity by electronic medical record (EMR) extraction method. To assess validity of survivor-reported mammography post-active treatment care, we surveyed all survivors diagnosed 2004–2009 in an academic hospital cancer registry (n = 1441). We used electronic query and manual review to extract EMR data. Concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and report-to-records ratio were calculated by comparing survivors’ self-reports to data from each extraction method. We also assessed average difference in months between mammography dates by source and correlates of concordance. Agreement between the two EMR extraction methods was high (concordance 0.90; kappa 0.70), with electronic query identifying more mammograms. Sensitivity was excellent (0.99) regardless of extraction method; concordance and positive predictive value were good; however, specificity was poor (manual review 0.20, electronic query 0.31). Report-to-records ratios were both over 1 suggesting over-reporting. We observed slight forward telescoping for survivors reporting mammograms 7–12 months prior to survey date. Higher educational attainment and less time since mammogram receipt were associated with greater concordance. Accuracy of survivors’ self-reported mammograms was generally high with slight forward telescoping among those recalling their mammograms between 7 and 12 months prior to the survey date. Results are encouraging for clinicians and practitioners relying on survivor reports for surveillance care delivery and as a screening tool for inclusion in interventions promoting adherence to surveillance guidelines.

KW - Breast cancer survivors

KW - Mammography surveillance

KW - Validity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84937761456&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84937761456&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10549-015-3387-2

DO - 10.1007/s10549-015-3387-2

M3 - Article

VL - 151

SP - 427

EP - 434

JO - Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

JF - Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

SN - 0167-6806

IS - 2

ER -