IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

An exploratory instrumental variable analysis of the outcomes of localized breast cancer treatments in a medicare population

Listed author(s):
  • Jack Hadley
  • Daniel Polsky
  • Jeanne S. Mandelblatt

    (Department of Human Oncology and Medicine, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Lombardi Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA)

  • Jean M. Mitchell

    (Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA)

  • Jane C. Weeks

    (Department of Adult Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Qin Wang

    (Institute for Health Care Research and Policy, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA)

  • Yi-Ting Hwang

    (Department of Human Oncology, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Lombardi Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA)

Registered author(s):

    This study is motivated by the potential problem of using observational data to draw inferences about treatment outcomes when experimental data are not available. We compare two statistical approaches, ordinary least-squares (OLS) and instrumental variables (IV) regression analysis, to estimate the outcomes (three-year post-treatment survival) of three treatments for early stage breast cancer in elderly women: mastectomy (MST), breast conserving surgery with radiation therapy (BCSRT), and breast conserving surgery only (BCSO). The primary data source was Medicare claims for a national random sample of 2907 women (age 67 or older) with localized breast cancer who were treated between 1992 and 1994. Contrary to randomized clinical trial (RCT) results, analysis with the observational data found highly significant differences in survival among the three treatment alternatives: 79.2% survival for BCSO, 85.3% for MST, and 93.0% for BCSRT. Using OLS to control for the effects of observable characteristics narrowed the estimated survival rate differences, which remained statistically significant. In contrast, the IV analysis estimated survival rate differences that were not significantly different from 0. However, the IV-point estimates of the treatment effects were quantitatively larger than the OLS estimates, unstable, and not significantly different from the OLS results. In addition, both sets of estimates were in the same quantitative range as the RCT results. We conclude that unadjusted observational data on health outcomes of alternative treatments for localized breast cancer should not be used for cost-effectiveness studies. Our comparisons suggest that whether one places greater confidence in the OLS or the IV results depends on at least three factors: (1) the extent of observable health information that can be used as controls in OLS estimation, (2) the outcomes of statistical tests of the validity of the instrumental variable method, and (3) the similarity of the OLS and IV estimates. In this particular analysis, the OLS estimates appear to be preferable because of the instability of the IV estimates. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.

    Volume (Year): 12 (2003)
    Issue (Month): 3 ()
    Pages: 171-186

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:3:p:171-186
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.710
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Douglas Staiger & James H. Stock, 1997. "Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 557-586, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:3:p:171-186. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)

    or (Christopher F. Baum)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.