ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs2024
Real-world lessons: combining cancer registry and retail pharmacy data for oral cancer drugs.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of community pharmacists in cancer survivorship care - a scoping review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2025Review
- The SEER Program's evolution: supporting clinically meaningful population-level research.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecent cancer care advances have introduced new oral therapies, and yet population registries lack detailed treatment data, hampering investigations into therapy uptake, adherence, and outcomes.
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the representativeness and completeness of linking Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry data with data from two major retail pharmacy chains, collectively covering a large segment of the US market.
methodsA deterministic data linkage between 11 SEER cancer registries and retail pharmacy data (excluding mail order fills) was conducted for individuals diagnosed with selected cancers from 2013 to 2017, with follow-up through 2019. Descriptive characteristics of the linked and unlinked populations were examined. In a selected subcohort of older women (aged ≥65) with first and only primary breast cancer who had Medicare Part D claims for tamoxifen, we further validated the linkage using Medicare Part D event data as the reference standard.
resultsAmong 758 068 eligible individuals, only 6.4% were linked to CVS/Walgreens data; the linkage percentage varied by age, sex, race, ethnicity, registry, and cancer type. Within the subcohort of 5963 older women with breast cancer and a claim for tamoxifen in Part D data, 25% were identified as tamoxifen users in retail pharmacy data. Out of these 1490 women, 749 (50.3%) had complete longitudinal tamoxifen dispensing information from retail pharmacy data.
conclusionRetail pharmacy data show promise in identifying oral anticancer treatments, enhancing SEER registry efforts, but they require further validation. We propose an evaluation framework, sharing insights and potential use cases for this resource.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.