Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Medical Informatics
Date Submitted: Mar 22, 2021
Date Accepted: Jul 2, 2021
Automated Line-of-Therapy Algorithm for Adults with Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Validation Study Using Blinded Manual Chart Review
ABSTRACT
Background:
Extraction of line of therapy (LOT) information from electronic health record (EHR) and claims data is essential for determining longitudinal changes in systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) in real-world clinical settings.
Objective:
The aim of this retrospective cohort analysis was to validate and refine our previously described open source LOT algorithm by comparing algorithm output with results obtained through blinded manual chart review.
Methods:
We used structured EHR data and clinical documents to identify 500 adult patients treated for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with SACT from 2011 through mid-2018, assigning patients to training (n=350) and test cohorts (n=150), randomly divided proportional to the overall ratio of simple:complex cases (n=254:246). Simple cases were patients who received one LOT and no maintenance therapy; complex cases received more than one LOT and/or maintenance therapy. Algorithmic changes were performed using the training cohort data, after which the refined algorithm was evaluated against the test cohort.
Results:
For the simple cases, 16 instances of discordance between LOT algorithm and chart review pre-refinement were reduced to 8 instances post-refinement; in the test cohort there was no discordance between algorithm and chart review. For the complex cases, algorithm refinement reduced discordance from 68 to 62 instances, with 37 instances in the test cohort. Percentage agreement between LOT algorithm output and chart review for patients who received one LOT was 89% pre-refinement, 93% post-refinement, and 93% for the test cohort, while the likelihood of precise matching between algorithm output and chart review decreased with increasing number of unique regimens. Several areas of discordance that arose from differing definitions of LOTs and maintenance therapy could not be objectively resolved because of a lack of precise definitions in the medical literature.
Conclusions:
Our findings identify common sources of discordance between an LOT algorithm and clinician documentation, providing for the possibility of targeted algorithm refinement.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.