130 likes | 239 Views
Tissuebanking System Review. Andrew Q. Winter Northwestern University 10/27/2005. The goal. To review 6 existing tissue banking systems to identify: Vocabularies that can be leveraged Functionality that should be recommended for workspace projects
E N D
Tissuebanking System Review Andrew Q. Winter Northwestern University 10/27/2005
The goal • To review 6 existing tissue banking systems to identify: • Vocabularies that can be leveraged • Functionality that should be recommended for workspace projects • Produce a checklist/scorecard for a Consumer Reports-type synopsis of a cross-section of systems
Systems identified for review • Solicited suggestions for systems to review from the Workspace • Narrowed the list down to 6: • Dataworks Development, Inc: Freezerworks • Duke University: MAW3 • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: CRDB • University of Alabama, Birmingham: CHTN • …two others…
Systems identified for review • Two systems ultimately had to be removed from the review due to various issues including: • Changes in personnel • Applying for caBIG funding • General timing issues
Creation of the Checklist • Worked with Kim Johnson (Duke/CALGB) to create a scorecard for both this SOW and her evaluation of cooperative group banking systems. • Contains 127 items broken into 11 sections
Introduction Architecture Security Auditing Software Interface Reporting Patient Management Sample/Specimen Management Biospecimen storage Data Sharing Pathology Diagnosis Checklist sections
Commonalities across all systems • Track biospecimens by patient • Track specimen/sample relationships • Store biospecimen annotations • Request sample withdrawal from a bank • Reflect the shipment of a sample • Reflect the depletion of a specimen
Commonalities (continued) • Display the location of samples • Auditing of changes • All employ a native security system • All use role-based security (more or less)
Advantages: Professional product with support Runs on Windows, Mac, web client in testing Excellent auditing Sophisticated (though complicated and slow) querying Limitations: Not especially customizable for workflow Managing users is cumbersome Runs on obscure database (4D) No published API or official access to the tables Summary: Freezerworks
Advantages: Impressive de-identification mechanism Querying/searching paradigm throughout interface Uses common ontology (SNOMED) Stores and parses pathology reports, similar to caTIES Limitations: Presently only used for two banking studies Windows/IE only interface Designed to specifically meet Duke’s needs Summary: MAW3 (Duke)
Advantages: Interesting approach to managing investigators and projects Networked to all CHTN sites Searches samples across multiple banks, locations Limitations: Very busy interface to meet CHTN needs Large grain role-based security (admin/user) No anonymization/de-identification Barcoding not in scope for CHTN system Summary: CHTN (UAB)
Advantages: Integrated with CTMS system, providing patient outcomes information Uses CPT codes for surgical procedures Incorporates business rules such as automatic verification of consent status Limitations: Relies heavily on Oracle technologies Built specifically to address MSKCC’s workflow Summary: CRDB (MSKCC)
Thanks: • Raj Dash (Duke) • Chris Hubbard (Duke) • Kim Johnson (Duke) • John Speakman (MSKCC) • Li Zeng (MSKCC) • Brian Cundiff (NU) • Adekunle Raji (NU) • Bill Grizzle (UAB) • Kathy Sexton (UAB)