180 likes | 192 Views
This pilot project aims to promote the standard exchange of data between pathologists and cancer registries through the implementation of SNOMED CT encoded CAP Cancer Checklists. The project compares the completeness, timeliness, and quality of cancer checklists with text-based narrative reports.
E N D
Electronic CAP Cancer Checklists and Cancer Registries – A Pilot Project 2009 NAACCR Conference Ken Gerlach, MPH, CTR Castine Verrill, MS, CTR CDC-National Program of Cancer Registries June 16, 2009
Reporting Pathology Protocols (RPP) • Demonstration projects funded by CDC NPCR • Implement CAP Cancer Checklists with SNOMED CT Codes • In 2001 • California and Ohio were funded for RPP1 • Cancers of the colon and rectum • In 2004 • California, Maine, and Pennsylvania funded for RPP2 • Cancers of the breast, prostate, and melanoma of the skin
Collaborators • State and hospital cancer registries • Cancer registry information system vendors • Pathologists and pathology laboratories • Anatomical pathology laboratory information system vendors (AP LIS) • College of American Pathologists (CAP) • Principal organization of board-certified pathologists • Experts in HL7 vocabulary and messaging standards
Project Purpose • Encourage a standard exchange of data between two key public health partners • Anatomical Pathology (AP) Laboratories • Cancer Registries • Use the SNOMED CT encoded CAP Cancer Checklists to promote an exchange of data • Compare completeness, timeliness, and quality of cancer checklists with text-based narrative reports
College of American Pathologists (CAP) • In 1999, the CAP Cancer Committee published • Reporting on Cancer Specimens Protocols and Case Summaries • Purpose • To aid pathologists with completeness, accuracy, and uniformity in reporting of malignant tumors • The cancer protocols - site-specific • The associated checklist - synoptic format
Breast Cancer Checklist Protocol applies to all invasive carcinomas of the breast. Protocol revision date: January 2005 Based on AJCC/UICC TNM, 6th edition Procedures • Cytology (No Accompanying Checklist) • Biopsy (Incisional, Core Needle) (No Accompanying Checklist) • Complete Excision Less Than Total Mastectomy (With or Without Axillary Contents) • Mastectomy (Total, Modified Radical, Radical)
Breast Cancer Checklist Modified Radical Mastectomy, Radical Mastectomy Note: Check 1 response unless otherwise indicated. MACROSCOPIC Tumor Site (check all that apply) ___ Upper outer quadrant ___ Lower outer quadrant ___ Upper inner quadrant ___ Lower inner quadrant ___ Central ___ Not specified
SNOMED CT Encoded CAP Cancer Checklist (SECCC) TUMOR SITE (check all that apply) [R-0025A, 371480007] Tumor site (observable entity) ___ Upper outer quadrant[T-04004, 76365002] Structure of upper outer quadrant of breast (body structure) ___ Lower outer quadrant[T-04005, 33564002] Structure of lower outer quadrant of breast (body structure) ___ Upper inner quadrant[T-04002, 77831004] Structure of upper inner quadrant of breast (body structure) ___ Lower inner quadrant[T-04003, 19100000] Structure of lower inner quadrant of breast (body structure) ___ Central[T-04001, 49058007] Structure of central portion of breast (body structure) ___ Not specified[T-04000, 76752008] Breast structure (body structure)
Technical Specifications • January 2005 version of the CAP Checklists • January 2006 version of the SNOMED CT Encoded CAP Cancer Checklists (SECCC) • Agreed upon common format consistent with HL7 Version 2.3.1 and developed an Implementation Guide • Checklists designed for paper systems
Cancer Registry Data Items • CAP Checklist – Mappings • NAACCR Data Items • Collaborative Stage
Issues with Mapping • Mapping between SNOMED and NAACCR codes • Laterality – maps easily • Tumor site – maps with one business rule • Extension – maps with multiple rules
Findings • Checklist data items - transmitted successfully • Checklist reports generally equal data found in text-based pathology reports • Discrepancies between checklist and text-based reports appeared to be minimal • CAP checklists use reduces time to prepare cancer abstracts • Electronic version of checklists and lab procedures impact pathologists use
Findings • Number of tumors is not a CAP Checklist data item – Issue • Project - multiple cancers on a single path report but no existing national standards • Clinical history information is not routinely in Checklists • Histology codes on checklist limited, with free-text choice - pathologists not using this feature - Software could facilitate more detailed encoding • Cancer registry collection e-Checklist labor intensive
Conclusions • Future Shock: 2004 – Today • SECCC – eCC • CAP Cancer Checklists – Major Updates • AJCC 7th Edition • Collaborative Stage • Pathology Electronic Reporting Taskforce (PERT) • SNOMED CT – LOINC • Cancer Registry Mappings • XML Representation • NAACCR Volume V
Thank you Ken Gerlach kgerlach@cdc.gov Castine Verrill cverrill@cdc.gov Acknowledgements: RPP Project Teams The findings and conclusions in this presentation are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention