This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: M2649v1 15/3/341    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by D'Avolio, L. W. Articles by Bui, A. A.T. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by D'Avolio, L. W. Articles by Bui, A. A.T.

Facilitating Clinical Outcomes Assessment through the Automated Identification of Quality Measures for Prostate Cancer Surgery

^a Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center (MAVERIC), Veterans Administration Hospital, Boston, MA
^b The Graduate Program in Health Informatics, College of Computer and Information Science and the Bouvé College of Health Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, MA
^c Departments of Urology and Health Services, University of California, Los Angeles, CA
^d Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA
^e Medical Imaging Informatics Group, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.

^_* Correspondence: Leonard W. D'Avolio, PhD, MAVERIC (151MAV), Boston VA HCS, 150 South Huntington Avenue, Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 (Email: ldavolio{at}ccs.neu.edu).

Received for publication: 10/16/07; accepted for publication: 02/11/08.

Objectives: The College of American Pathologists (CAP) Category 1 quality measures, tumor stage, Gleason score, and surgical margin status, are used by physicians and cancer registrars to categorize patients into groups for clinical trials and treatment planning. This study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of an application designed to automatically extract these quality measures from the postoperative pathology reports of patients having undergone prostatectomies for treatment of prostate cancer.

Design: An application was developed with the Clinical Outcomes Assessment Toolkit that uses an information pipeline of regular expressions and support vector machines to extract CAP Category 1 quality measures. System performance was evaluated against a gold standard of 676 pathology reports from the University of California at Los Angeles Medical Center and Brigham and Women's Hospital. To evaluate the feasibility of clinical implementation, all pathology reports were gathered using administrative codes with no manual preprocessing of the data performed.

Measurements: The sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy of system performance were measured for all three quality measures. Performance at both hospitals was compared, and a detailed failure analysis was conducted to identify errors caused by poor data quality versus system shortcomings.

Results: Accuracies for Gleason score were 99.7%, tumor stage 99.1%, and margin status 97.2%, for an overall accuracy of 98.67%. System performance on data from both hospitals was comparable. Poor clinical data quality led to a decrease in overall accuracy of only 0.3% but accounted for 25.9% of the total errors.

Conclusion: Despite differences in document format and pathologists' reporting styles, strong system performance indicates the potential of using a combination of regular expressions and support vector machines to automatically extract CAP Category 1 quality measures from postoperative prostate cancer pathology reports.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. W. D'Avolio and A. A.T. Bui The Clinical Outcomes Assessment Toolkit: A Framework to Support Automated Clinical Records-based Outcomes Assessment and Performance Measurement Research J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., May 1, 2008; 15(3): 333 - 340. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]