Dataset Information

Identification of Key Elements in Prostate Cancer for Ontology Building via a Multidisciplinary Consensus Agreement.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Clinical data collection related to prostate cancer (PCa) care is often unstructured or heterogeneous among providers, resulting in a high risk for ambiguity in its meaning when sharing or analyzing data. Ontologies, which are shareable formal (i.e., computable) representations of knowledge, can address these challenges by enabling machine-readable semantic interoperability. The purpose of this study was to identify PCa-specific key data elements (KDEs) for standardization in clinic and research.

Methods

A modified Delphi method using iterative online surveys was performed to report a consensus agreement on KDEs by a multidisciplinary panel of 39 PCa specialists. Data elements were divided into three themes in PCa and included (1) treatment-related toxicities (TRT), (2) patient-reported outcome measures (PROM), and (3) disease control metrics (DCM).

Results

The panel reached consensus on a thirty-item, two-tiered list of KDEs focusing mainly on urinary and rectal symptoms. The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) questionnaire was considered most robust for PROM multi-domain monitoring, and granular KDEs were defined for DCM.

Conclusions

This expert consensus on PCa-specific KDEs has served as a foundation for a professional society-endorsed, publicly available operational ontology developed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Big Data Sub Committee (BDSC).

SUBMITTER: Moreno A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10295832 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Identification of Key Elements in Prostate Cancer for Ontology Building via a Multidisciplinary Consensus Agreement.

Moreno Amy A Solanki Abhishek A AA Xu Tianlin T Lin Ruitao R Palta Jatinder J Daugherty Emily E Hong David D Hong Julian J Kamran Sophia C SC Katsoulakis Evangelia E Brock Kristy K Feng Mary M Fuller Clifton C Mayo Charles C

Cancers 20230608 12

<h4>Background</h4>Clinical data collection related to prostate cancer (PCa) care is often unstructured or heterogeneous among providers, resulting in a high risk for ambiguity in its meaning when sharing or analyzing data. Ontologies, which are shareable formal (i.e., computable) representations of knowledge, can address these challenges by enabling machine-readable semantic interoperability. The purpose of this study was to identify PCa-specific key data elements (KDEs) for standardization in ...[more]

PMID: 37370731

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGermline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are not yet well defined.ObjectiveTo determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the indication and application of germline and tumour genetic testing in PCa.Design setting and participantsThe panel consisted of 39 specialists involved in PCa management. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a virtual consensus meeting.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisConsensus was reached if ≥75% of the panellists chose the same option. Appropriateness was assessed by the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.Results and limitationsOf the multiple-choice questions, 44% reached consensus. For men without PCa having a relevant family history (familial PCa/BRCA-related hereditary cancer), follow-up by prostate-specific antigen was considered appropriate. For patients with low-risk localised PCa and a family history of PCa, active surveillance was considered appropriate, except in case of the patient being a BRCA2 germline pathogenic variant carrier. Germline and tumour genetic testing should not be done for nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive PCa in the absence of a relevant family history of cancer. Tumour genetic testing was deemed most appropriate for the identification of actionable variants, with uncertainty for germline testing. For tumour genetic testing in metastatic castration-resistant PCa, consensus was not reached for the timing and panel composition. The principal limitations are as follows: (1) a number of topics discussed lack scientific evidence, and therefore the recommendations are partly opinion based, and (2) there was a small number of experts per discipline.ConclusionsThe outcomes of this Dutch consensus meeting may provide further guidance on genetic counselling and molecular testing related to PCa.Patient summaryA group of Dutch specialists discussed the use of germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, indication of these tests (which patients and when), and impact of these tests on the management and treatment of PCa.

Dataset Information

Identification of Key Elements in Prostate Cancer for Ontology Building via a Multidisciplinary Consensus Agreement.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Identification of Key Elements in Prostate Cancer for Ontology Building via a Multidisciplinary Consensus Agreement.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets