Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
We generated methods for evaluating clinical outcomes including treatment response in oncology using the unstructured data from electronic health records (EHR) in Japanese language.
Methods
This retrospective analysis used medical record database and administrative data of University of Miyazaki Hospital in Japan of patients with lung/breast cancer. Treatment response (objective response [OR], stable disease [SD] or progressive disease [PD]) was adjudicated by two evaluators using clinicians’ progress notes, radiology reports and pathological reports of 15 patients with lung cancer (training data set). For assessing key terms to describe treatment response, natural language processing (NLP) rules were created from the texts identified by the evaluators and broken down by morphological analysis. The NLP rules were applied for assessing data of other 70 lung cancer and 30 breast cancer patients, who were not adjudicated, to examine if any difference in using key terms exist between these patients.
Results
A total of 2,039 records in progress notes, 131 in radiology reports and 60 in pathological reports of 15 patients, were adjudicated. Progress notes were the most common primary source data for treatment assessment (60.7%), wherein, the most common key terms with high sensitivity and specificity to describe OR were “reduction/shrink”, for SD were “(no) remarkable change/(no) aggravation)” and for PD were “(limited) effect” and “enlargement/grow”. These key terms were also found in other larger cohorts of 70 patients with lung cancer and 30 patients with breast cancer.
Conclusion
This study demonstrated that assessing response to anticancer therapy using Japanese EHRs is feasible by interpreting progress notes, radiology reports and Japanese key terms using NLP.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Biomedical Engineering,Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology,Bioengineering,Biotechnology
Reference23 articles.
1. Garrison LP Jr, Neumann PJ, Erickson P, Marshall D, Mullins CD. Value Health. 2007;10:326–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00186.x. Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: the ISPOR Real-World Data Task Force report.
2. Katkade VB, Sanders KN, Zou KH. Real world data: an opportunity to supplement existing evidence for the use of long-established medicines in health care decision making. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2018;11:295–304. https://doi.org/10.2147/jmdh.s160029.
3. Ehrenstein V, Kharrazi H, Lehmann H et al. (2019) Obtaining data from electronic health records, tools and technologies for registry interoperability, registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user’s guide, 3rd Edition, Addendum 2 [Internet], Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US).
4. Kim E, Rubinstein SM, Nead KT, Wojcieszynski AP, Gabriel PE, Warner JL. The evolving use of electronic health records (EHR) for research. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2019;29:354–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2019.05.010.
5. Zarrinpar A, Cheng T-YD, Huo Z. What can we learn about drug safety and other effects in the era of electronic health records and big data that we would not be able to learn from classic epidemiology? J Surg Res. 2020;246:599–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.09.053.