EPID-18. Accuracy of claims-based algorithms in the identification of leptomeningeal disease: a validation study

Abstract Though administrative claims have been shown to reliably identify patients with brain metastases (BM), the validity of claims-based methods for identifying leptomeningeal disease (LMD) remains unestablished. We evaluated the accuracy of claims data in identifying LMD cases among patients diagnosed with LMD at Stanford Hospital (n=145) from 2020 to 2024, using a clinical database derived from neuro-oncology and neurosurgical oncology clinic records that included data on primary cancer type, symptoms, and procedures. A subset of these patients (n=20) was employed as a training set for this study. Using this cohort of confirmed LMD, we performed entity resolution with a large AI-linked claims database (Healthcare Map®) and analyzed the dates of LMD diagnosis, metastasis-related procedures, symptoms, and screening coded in claims. Sensitivity of claims-based LMD identification was assessed against chart-confirmed LMD. Claims-based LMD diagnosis coding alone demonstrated 45% sensitivity within 30 days of chart-confirmed diagnosis. However, incorporating procedure codes (WBRT/SRS/resection) increased sensitivity to 83% (30% of patients). Incorporating coding for specific symptoms also improved accuracy, but to a lesser extent: adding hydrocephalus coding achieved 80% sensitivity, while less-specific symptoms (headache) achieved 33% sensitivity. Combining two code types (procedure + symptom) achieved 100% sensitivity (20% of patients). Notably, 89% of patients with timely LMD coding had concurrent screening or symptom coding, and 78% had metastasis-related procedures within 30 days of diagnosis. These findings demonstrate that claims data can reliably identify LMD when code types (diagnosis + procedures) are combined, mirroring validated algorithms for claims-based identification of BM. However, symptom-based coding lacks precision, highlighting its limitations in capturing LMD without definitive diagnostic coding. This study establishes a framework for leveraging claims in LMD research, enabling large-scale epidemiological studies previously constrained to small cohorts. Future multi-institutional validation will strengthen generalizability, replicating advancements in BM research to address gaps in the understanding of LMD epidemiology.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Neuro-Oncology
Published
2025-11-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noaf201.0750
Primary Topic
Brain Metastases and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

EPID-18. Accuracy of claims-based algorithms in the identification of leptomeningeal disease: a validation study

Seema Nagpal, David Rogawski, Marc G. Carmichael, Melanie Hayden Gephart et al.
Neuro-Oncology
Brain Metastases and Treatment
article

EPID-18. Accuracy of claims-based algorithms in the identification of leptomeningeal disease: a validation study

Seema Nagpal, David Rogawski, Marc G. Carmichael, Melanie Hayden Gephart, B. C. Cerio, Lilian Yao
article en

Abstract

Abstract Though administrative claims have been shown to reliably identify patients with brain metastases (BM), the validity of claims-based methods for identifying leptomeningeal disease (LMD) remains unestablished. We evaluated the accuracy of claims data in identifying LMD cases among patients diagnosed with LMD at Stanford Hospital (n=145) from 2020 to 2024, using a clinical database derived from neuro-oncology and neurosurgical oncology clinic records that included data on primary cancer type, symptoms, and procedures. A subset of these patients (n=20) was employed as a training set for this study. Using this cohort of confirmed LMD, we performed entity resolution with a large AI-linked claims database (Healthcare Map®) and analyzed the dates of LMD diagnosis, metastasis-related procedures, symptoms, and screening coded in claims. Sensitivity of claims-based LMD identification was assessed against chart-confirmed LMD. Claims-based LMD diagnosis coding alone demonstrated 45% sensitivity within 30 days of chart-confirmed diagnosis. However, incorporating procedure codes (WBRT/SRS/resection) increased sensitivity to 83% (30% of patients). Incorporating coding for specific symptoms also improved accuracy, but to a lesser extent: adding hydrocephalus coding achieved 80% sensitivity, while less-specific symptoms (headache) achieved 33% sensitivity. Combining two code types (procedure + symptom) achieved 100% sensitivity (20% of patients). Notably, 89% of patients with timely LMD coding had concurrent screening or symptom coding, and 78% had metastasis-related procedures within 30 days of diagnosis. These findings demonstrate that claims data can reliably identify LMD when code types (diagnosis + procedures) are combined, mirroring validated algorithms for claims-based identification of BM. However, symptom-based coding lacks precision, highlighting its limitations in capturing LMD without definitive diagnostic coding. This study establishes a framework for leveraging claims in LMD research, enabling large-scale epidemiological studies previously constrained to small cohorts. Future multi-institutional validation will strengthen generalizability, replicating advancements in BM research to address gaps in the understanding of LMD epidemiology.

Neuro-OncologyVol. 27(Supplement_5)
San Francisco Department of Public Health (US), Stanford Medicine (US), Stanford University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 51%
Brain Metastases and Treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.