Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30662793›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2018

Integration of Cancer Registry Data into the Text Information Extraction System: Leveraging the Structured Data Import Tool.

Faina Linkov, Jonathan C Silverstein, Michael Davis, Brenda Crocker, Degan Hao, Althea Schneider, Melissa Schwenk, Sharon Winters, Joyce Zelnis, Adrian V Lee and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Clinical Data Warehousing: A Scoping Review.Journal of the Society for Clinical Data Management · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Faina LinkovDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Jonathan C SilversteinDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Michael DavisDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Brenda CrockerUPMC Hillman Cancer Center Information Services, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Degan HaoDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Althea SchneiderUPMC Network Cancer Registry, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Melissa SchwenkDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Sharon WintersUPMC Network Cancer Registry, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Joyce ZelnisDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Adrian V LeeDepartment of Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, The Institute for Precision Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Michael J BecichDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

INTRODUCTION/

backgroundCancer registries in the US collect timely and systematic data on new cancer cases, extent of disease, staging, biomarker status, treatment, survival, and mortality of cancer cases. Existing methodologies for accessing local cancer registry data for research are time-consuming and often rely on the manual merging of data by staff registrars. In addition, existing registries do not provide direct access to these data nor do they routinely provide linkage to discrete electronic health record (EHR) data, reports, or imaging data. Automation of such linkage can provide an impressive data resource and make valuable data available for translational cancer research.

methodsThe UPMC Network Cancer Registry collects highly structured, longitudinal data on all reportable cancer patients, from the point of the diagnosis throughout treatment and follow-up/outcomes. Using commercial registry software, we collect data in compliance with standards governed by the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. This standardization ensures that the data are highly structured with standard coding and collection methods, which support data exchange among central cancer registries and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

resultsAt the UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and University of Pittsburgh, we explored the feasibility of linking this well-curated, structured cancer registry data with unstructured text (i.e., pathology and radiology reports), using the Text Information Extraction System (TIES). We used the TIES platform to integrate breast cancer cases from the UPMC Network Cancer Registry system and then combine these data with other EHR data as a pilot use case that can be replicated for other cancers.

conclusionsAs a result of this integration, we now have a single searchable repository of information for breast cancer patients from the UPMC registry, combined with their pathology and radiology reports. The system that we developed is easily scalable to other health systems and cancer centers.

Indexed as

Breast cancercancer registryconcept recognitionimaging datapathology record

Identifiers

PMID30662793
PMCPMC6319041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.