Using CDC Edits Metafile in the Registry to Support Clinical Trials Recruitment Alan R. Houser, MA, MPH C/NET Solutions Dennis Deapen, DrPH Los Angeles.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Garden of Edits Alan R. Houser, MA, MPH Research Scientist II C/NET Solutions NCRA Educational Conference May 8, 2006.
Advertisements

Instructions and Reporting Requirements Module 3 Electronic Reporting For Facilities March 2014 North Carolina Central Cancer Registry State Center for.
School Census Summer 2011 Headlines Version Jim Haywood Product Manager for Statutory Returns.
Baptist Health System General Surgery Residency Program
Nadya Dimitrova Marieta Petkova. 13 Regional cancer registries BNCR: -Established in 1952; cases a year; million population;
1 Januari 2014 Via Beeld| Koptekst en voettekst kunt u deze tekst wijzigenVia Beeld| Koptekst en voettekst kunt u deze tekst wijzigen 1 Workflow of the.
Mortality Among a Tuberculosis Outbreak Los Angeles County, 2007–2013 Brian Baker, MD Amit Chitnis, MD MPH Leslie Henry, BSN RN PHN 48th CTCA Educational.
Web Plus Overview Division of Cancer Prevention and Control National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion CDC Registry Plus Training.
Cancer Registry Coding Changes for 2014 Presented by the Kentucky Cancer Registry February, 2014.
National Cancer Registry Luxembourg EUROCHIP-3 Meeting Ispra, 27 th February 2012 Olivier Collignon, PhD, Sophie Couffignal, MD, CRP-Santé.
Cancer Staging. What is cancer staging? Staging describes the severity of a person’s cancer based on the extent of the original (primary) tumor and whether.
Sleep Management Program Portal Training Guide February 3, 2015.
Trial Procedures and Forms
Gayle Greer Clutter, R.T., CTR Program Consultant
Quality Cancer Data The Vital Role of Cancer Registrars in the Fight against Cancer Saves Lives.
Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Cancer Incidence, Survival and Treatment Linda C. Harlan, PhD, MPH National Cancer Institute Division of Cancer Control and.
Kenya Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Program (KFELTP)
1 Terri Conner,PhD Nybeck Analytics Partnership for Patients 14 th May 2012 USE OF MEDICARE DIAGNOSIS AND PROCEDURE CODES TO IMPROVE DETECTION OF SURGICAL.
Outcomes of screening mammography among women aged 40 to 43 Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences Toronto, Canada (2006)
2010 Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Project Registry Operations and the SEER Program.
Abstract Plus Abstract Plus Overview for Pacific Regional Central Cancer Registry Honolulu, Hawaii March 7, 2009 Software for Abstracting and Coding Cancer.
Casefinding & Follow-Up Dolores E. McCord, RHIT, CTR Piedmont Hospital Atlanta, Georgia.
25 January 2013 Dr Ian Arnott UK Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) audit Audit of inpatients with ulcerative colitis 1st January 2013 – 31st December 2013.
MCR and WebPlus: Melanoma Reporting Nancy Cole, Missouri Cancer Registry.
Michigan Cancer Registry Update: Cancer Data and Highlights MCC Board of Directors Meeting June 19, 2013.
Systematic Reviews.
EDRN Approaches to Biomarker Validation DMCC Statisticians Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center Margaret Pepe Ziding Feng, Mark Thornquist, Yingye Zheng,
CANCER INCIDENCE IN NEW JERSEY BY COUNTY, for the Comprehensive Cancer Control Plan County Needs Assessments August 2003 Prepared by: Cancer.
Data Quality Toolbox for Registrars MCSS Workshop December 9, 2003 Elaine Collins.
Who, What, and Why of Reports By Kathy Dunaway, CTR.
A Glimpse of the Science Behind the American Cancer Society Access to Care Campaign Impact of Being Uninsured or Underinsured on Individuals with Cancer.
ABSTRACT Background: In late 2003, a group of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Program of Cancer Registries (CDC/NPCR) staff and faculty/staff.
BNR – Stroke: data entry and data management CAREC/PAHO Curacoa,15-16 November 2010 Gina Pitts, BNR-CVD Registrar Chronic Disease Research Centre, Jemmotts.
California Stroke Registry Right Care Initiative Meeting August 13, 2012.
Data Sources-Cancer Betsy A. Kohler, MPH, CTR Director, Cancer Epidemiology Services New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services.
Formic software training for the SCOOP study Mikey Desai, Training Consultant, Formic Ltd Liz Lenaghan, SCOOP Study Manager, UEA.
Acknowledgements This report differs from the submitted abstract due to further subdivision of patients into analytic and non- analytic, and focus on the.
How To Design a Clinical Trial
Say Goodbye to Paper: Web-Based Reporting is Here! Iris Zachary, MS, CTR, Missouri Cancer Registry.
CTRP User Call May 7, 2014 Gene Kraus CTRP Program Director.
Vicki LaRue, CTR KCR Abstractor’s Training February 12,
NCDB Report on Breast Cancer at Sibley Cancer Committee Feb Cancer Liaison Physician Karen Lisa Smith MD MPH.
1 Linking Social Security Death Index (SSDI) Data with Registry Data to Update Demographics and Vital Status David O’Brien, PhD, GISP Alaska Cancer Registry.
Uses of the NIH Collaboratory Distributed Research Network Jeffrey Brown, PhD for the DRN Team Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical.
The Cancer Registry of Norway Jan F Nygård Head of the IT-department.
Rosemary D. Cress, DrPH Research Program Director Improving Occupation Information in Central Cancer Registries for Use in Occupational Cancer Surveillance.
Rosemary D. Cress, DrPH Research Program Director Collection and Use of Industry and Occupation Data II: Overview and Goals NAACCR: June 19-25, 2010 Quebec.
Tumor Marker Phenotype Concordance in Second Primary Breast Cancer Monica Brown, MPH, PhD California Cancer Registry Mary Paré, RN, BS Sutter Cancer Center,
Feasibility assessment and recruitment using routine data sources: experience from the THRIVE trial Chris Bray & Rejive Dayanandan CTSU, University of.
Case Completeness and Data Accuracy in the National Program of Cancer Registries KK Thoburn, CDC/NPCR Contractor RR German, M Lewis, P Nichols, F Ahmed,
Presented at the NAACCR Annual Conference Quebec City June 22, 2010.
Enhancing Registry-Based Research: A Virtual Pooled Data Resource Dennis Deapen, DrPH NAACCR, Austin, TX June 13,
Is Your Data Management System Flexible for Quality Control Activities? Winny Roshala, CTR Data Standards and Quality Control Unit NAACCR: June 13-19,
Early Identification of Patients for Clinical Trials and Special Studies with Custom Metafile NAACCR, June 18, 2009 Alan R. Houser, MA, MPH C/NET Solutions.
The National Cancer Research Network is part of the National Institute for Health Research CANCER GENETIC TRIALS Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland.
Assessing Quality of Pathology Reporting: The Case of Tongue Cancer Lihua Liu 1, PhD Wesley Y. Naritoku 2, MD, PhD Juanjuan Zhang 1, MS Lenard Berglund.
JHH Prostate Cancer Prostate Cancer Cases Diagnosed 1999 – 2004 Analytic vs. Non-Analytic n=7776 * Analytic - Initially Diagnosed and/or received.
NAACCR CDA Pilot Project - Overview, Status, and Findings 2009 NAACCR Conference Ken Gerlach, Co-Chair, NAACCR Clinical Data Work Group; Health Scientist,
The Bridge from Patient to Scientist Comparison: BioBank and Cancer Registry Data Source Distinct Patients Percent BioBank % Cancer Registry %
Division of HIV/AIDS Managing Questionnaire Development for a National HIV Surveillance Survey, Medical Monitoring Project Jennifer L Fagan, Health Scientist/Interview.
National Bowel Cancer Audit
How To Design a Clinical Trial
LVF Audits – an Overview
Surveillance Research Program
SEER Case Consolidation Study: Design & Objective
Edits TRAM Educational Conference July 7, 2017
National Cancer Statistics in Korea, 2015
Andrea Sipin-Baliwas Los Angeles Cancer Surveillance Program
Text Mining for Data Quality Analysis of Melanoma Tumor Depth
Presentation transcript:

Using CDC Edits Metafile in the Registry to Support Clinical Trials Recruitment Alan R. Houser, MA, MPH C/NET Solutions Dennis Deapen, DrPH Los Angeles Cancer Surveillance Program

Finding a Clinical Trial NCI web site, ClinicalTrials.gov, has 5933* open trials for cancer patients. Focused search tool to filter on disease, age, location, and treatment. * Checked on 2/21/2007

ClinicalTrials.gov Optimal for searching for available trials for a single patient or patients with similar characteristics. Not suited for screening for trials for a large number of patients with dissimilar characteristics at one time.

Another Approach: CDC Edits Tools (1) Descriptive cancer terminology built in Excellent at complex pattern matching Readily customizable – each trial is translated into a single edit – edits can be removed from Metafile when closed to recruitment

Another Approach: CDC Edits Tools (2) Match multiple patients against multiple trials Match hundreds of trials against large numbers of cases at one time Portable – can distribute metafile widely

ClinicalTrials.gov For each listed trial, three elements of eligibility criteria: Disease characteristics Patient characteristics Prior concurrent therapy EDITS language can test each of these elements

How to Write an Edit to Select a Trial Identify inclusion and exclusion requirements for trial Match requirements to data fields in registry data set “Failing” an edit means “matching” a trial’s requirements – require failure to display message “Missing data” – write edits to exclude cases that don’t match requirements, leaving cases that are still potential matches

Demonstration Project (1) Write metafile edits for a selection of actual clinical trials selected from ClinicalTrials.gov Select trials that require a diagnosis of cancer – no prophylactic studies Select trials (five for each site) that use data fields available in registry data

Demonstration Project (2) Match metafile edits against a sample of real cancer case reports from central registry (California Cancer Registry) Select cases from 2004 forward to take advantage of Collaborative Staging

Methodology Datafile selected from California Cancer Registry Eureka database: NAACCR 11.1 format Clinical Trials Metafile created with EditWriter 3.0: five trials for each site Edits Metafile run against Eureka datafile with GenEdits Plus (beta)

Selecting Trials from ClinicalTrials.Gov (1) Select by Primary Site and Location (California)  Breast Cancer o Total Trials = 789* o California Trials = 131* o Translated into Metafile Edits = 5 * Checked on 2/21/2007

Selecting Trials from ClinicalTrials.Gov (2) Select by Primary Site and Location (California)  Prostate Cancer o Total Trials = 366* o California Trials = 70* o Translated into Metafile Edits = 5 * Checked on 2/21/2007

Selecting Trials from ClinicalTrials.Gov (3) Select by Primary Site and Location (California)  Lung Cancer o Total Trials = 575* o California Trials = 107* o Translated into Metafile Edits = 5 * Checked on 2/21/2007

Case Data File (1) Extract test file from California Cancer Registry’s Eureka database:  All patients diagnosed (about 2.5 years)  Three sites: breast, prostate, lung  Vital status alive  Los Angeles County residents at diagnosis  31,007 cases identified

Case Data File (2) Selected from California Cancer Registry’s Eureka database  3 sites, patients alive at last contact: o Breast (C500-C509), 15,708 cases o Prostate (C619), 11,197 cases o Lung (C ), 4102 cases

Tracing the Filtering Process (1) Breast Clinical Trial NCT  Start: 31,007 cases Exclude if not female, not alive  Step 1: 19,588 cases Exclude if not breast or if bilateral  Step 2: 15,613 cases Exclude if not invasive, not microscopically confirmed  Step 3: 12,688 cases

Tracing the Filtering Process (2) Breast Clinical Trial NCT Exclude if not Stage I, II, IIIA  Step 4: 10,870 cases Exclude if ERA, PRA are within normal limits  Step 5: 8430 cases Exclude if hormone therapy not given  Step 6: 867 cases Exclude if not lumpectomy or simple mastectomy with lymph node staging  Final: 756 cases

Results: Five Breast Cancer Trials Total breast cases: 15,708  NCT : 11,302 (72%)  NCT : 573 ( 3.6%)  NCT : 756 ( 4.8%)  NCT : 341 ( 2.2%)  NCT : 1075 ( 6.8%)

Results: Five Prostate Cancer Trials Total prostate cases: 11,197  NCT : 97 ( 0.9%)  NCT : 9 ( 0.1%)  NCT : 247 ( 2.2%)  NCT : 2814 (25%)  NCT : 12 ( 0.1%)

Results: Five Lung Cancer Trials Total lung cases: 4102  NCT : 222 ( 5.4%)  NCT : 948 (23%)  NCT : 1682 (41%)  NCT : 183 ( 4.5%)  NCT : 154 ( 3.8%)

Summary Metafile technology can be used to screen large data sets for potential clinical participants Matching criteria is limited by registry data set Additional criteria not available to registry may exclude patients identified by metafile matching

Limitations of Metafile Scanning of Registry Data (1) Data not collected  Her2/neu (except in California)  Date treatment ended  Clinical factors (lab tests, fitness)

Limitations of Metafile Scanning of Registry Data (2) Incomplete treatment data  Cases may be reported before treatment is completed  No identification of specific agents  No identification of multiple courses

Limitations of Metafile Scanning of Registry Data (3) Incomplete recurrence data  May not be available to central registry unless reported from hospital registries

Extending the Technology: Hospital Registry More timely identification of eligible cases Monitor changes in patient status that could trigger eligibility (e.g., recurrence, additional treatment) Notification of managing physician when patient become eligible Interactive or batch processing Data set not limited to state requirements

Extending the Technology: Physician Reporting Immediate notification of potential eligibility Passive, not active, screening by physician or staff

Thank You Dennis Deapen (LA CSP), for guiding the direction of this work with his helpful suggestions Mark Allen (CCR), for providing the data extract from the Eureka database Winny Roshala (CCR), for help in translating clinical trial requirements into ICD-O-3 codes Tom Rawson (CDC), for making available GenEdit Plus (beta) for running the edits

For more information: Alan R. Houser C/NET Solutions 1936 University Ave, Suite 112 Berkeley CA (510)