National Centre for Infections in Cancer, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Paediatric Integrated Cancer Service, Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
PLoS One. 2020 Sep 9;15(9):e0238889. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238889. eCollection 2020.
Invasive fungal infection (IFI) detection requires application of complex case definitions by trained staff. Administrative coding data (ICD-10-AM) may provide a simplified method for IFI surveillance, but accuracy of case ascertainment in children with cancer is unknown.
To determine the classification performance of ICD-10-AM codes for detecting IFI using a gold-standard dataset (r-TERIFIC) of confirmed IFIs in paediatric cancer patients at a quaternary referral centre (Royal Children's Hospital) in Victoria, Australia from 1st April 2004 to 31st December 2013.
ICD-10-AM codes denoting IFI in paediatric patients (<18-years) with haematologic or solid tumour malignancies were extracted from the Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset and linked to the r-TERIFIC dataset. Sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV) and the F1 scores of the ICD-10-AM codes were calculated.
Of 1,671 evaluable patients, 113 (6.76%) had confirmed IFI diagnoses according to gold-standard criteria, while 114 (6.82%) cases were identified using the codes. Of the clinical IFI cases, 68 were in receipt of ≥1 ICD-10-AM code(s) for IFI, corresponding to an overall sensitivity, PPV and F1 score of 60%, respectively. Sensitivity was highest for proven IFI (77% [95% CI: 58-90]; F1 = 47%) and invasive candidiasis (83% [95% CI: 61-95]; F1 = 76%) and lowest for other/unspecified IFI (20% [95% CI: 5.05-72%]; F1 = 5.00%). The most frequent misclassification was coding of invasive aspergillosis as invasive candidiasis.
ICD-10-AM codes demonstrate moderate sensitivity and PPV to detect IFI in children with cancer. However, specific subsets of proven IFI and invasive candidiasis (codes B37.x) are more accurately coded.
侵袭性真菌感染(IFI)的检测需要经过培训的医务人员应用复杂的病例定义。行政编码数据(ICD-10-AM)可能为IFI 监测提供一种简化方法,但在儿童癌症患者中,其病例确定的准确性尚不清楚。
使用澳大利亚维多利亚州四所转诊中心(皇家儿童医院)的儿童癌症患者确诊IFI 的金标准数据集(r-TERIFIC),确定用于检测IFI 的 ICD-10-AM 代码的分类性能。该数据集包含了 2004 年 4 月 1 日至 2013 年 12 月 31 日期间的病例。
从维多利亚州住院记录数据集提取儿科患者(<18 岁)血液系统或实体瘤恶性肿瘤的 IFI ICD-10-AM 编码,并与 r-TERIFIC 数据集进行链接。计算 ICD-10-AM 编码的灵敏度、阳性预测值(PPV)和 F1 分数。
在 1671 例可评估患者中,根据金标准标准,有 113 例(6.76%)被确诊为 IFI,而 114 例(6.82%)通过编码识别。在临床 IFI 病例中,有 68 例接受了至少 1 个 IFI 的 ICD-10-AM 编码,对应的总体灵敏度、PPV 和 F1 分数分别为 60%、60%和 60%。证实的 IFI(77%[95%CI:58-90];F1=47%)和侵袭性念珠菌病(83%[95%CI:61-95];F1=76%)的灵敏度最高,而其他/未明确 IFI(20%[95%CI:5.05-72%];F1=5.00%)的灵敏度最低。最常见的错误分类是编码侵袭性曲霉菌病为侵袭性念珠菌病。
ICD-10-AM 编码对检测儿童癌症患者的 IFI 具有中等的灵敏度和 PPV。然而,特定的 IFI 子集和侵袭性念珠菌病(B37.x 代码)的编码更为准确。