1 / 13

Tumour Matching N.Ireland Experience

Tumour Matching N.Ireland Experience. Colin Fox (IT Manager) Richard Middleton (Data Manager). Background to Approach 1. New Registry with a need to produce incidence figures QUICKLY!!

ttran
Download Presentation

Tumour Matching N.Ireland Experience

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tumour MatchingN.Ireland Experience Colin Fox (IT Manager) Richard Middleton (Data Manager)

  2. Background to Approach 1 • New Registry with a need to produce incidence figures QUICKLY!! • System implementation issues - problems with inherent code translations - switch to “Direct Mapping” approach • PAS - ICD10 coding from April 1996 • Pathology - SNOMED to ICD9/10 translation table • Small catchment area, manageable numbers - manual review possible

  3. Background to Approach 2 • Bulk of incoming records from PAS and therefore already coded in ICD10 • Typical composition of selected tumour sites on NICR system (1998 reg.):SitePAS (max)Path (max)PAS (mean)Path (mean)No. %HiLung 29193.141.63923 67Breast 85 64.031.8292894Skin 38100.531.282274~93

  4. Philosophy behind Matching Algorithm • Simple - use incoming raw data as much as possible to reduce complexity • Repeatable - consistent results • Fit for purpose - good enough to provide reasonable accuracy • Never be perfect - an understanding of the limitations and any additional countermeasures needed

  5. Tumour Matching Rules 1 • NICR match tumours on ICD-10 • Receive most data in ICD10 (PAS) • Table coverts SNOMED into ICD10 • First 3 digits from SOURCE record S are compared to the first 3 digits of tumour registration D(i), where i is the number of tumour registrations for a matched patient • Match obtained when S=D(i) • Applies to most tumours with some exceptions

  6. Tumour Matching Rules 2 Exceptions • Previous Rule applies except for Melanomas (C43), Colon (C18) and Skin (C44) • Match based on complete ICD10 code • Exception: skins (morphology considered)1 BCC + 1SCC per patient • Same site two tumour morphologies take highest morphologye.g. M80103, M81403 --> M81403on databaseExceptions • Skins (as above) and Leukaemias & Lymphomas

  7. Tumour Matching Rules 3 Matched tumours are consolidated as follows: • If 4th digit in one of S or D(i) is 0-8 and the 4th digit of the other is “9” (NOS) the more specific sub-site is registerede.g. C50.4 & C50.9 –> C50.4 on database • If 4th digits in both of S or D(i) differ and are between 0-8 merge as “8”e.g. C15.5 & C15.4 –> C15.8 on database

  8. Updating Date of Diagnosis • Preferred date is always “Date of first microscopic verification” – 80% cases in NICR have cytology or pathology • If no microscopic verification Manual Resolution (PAS only)“Date of procedure which leads to diagnosis”, we use a Hierarchy e.g. CT better than XR • This is different from UKACR & ENCR rules e.g. “Date treatment started” is before “Date of first microscopic verification”

  9. Updating “Basis of Diagnosis” • Hierarchy of “Basis of Diagnosis” • Histopathology • Cytology • Clinical Investigation • Clinical Opinion • Death Certificate • Rules same as UKACR & ENCR

  10. Consequences of Approach 1 • Loss of Multiple Primaries (currently <6% excluding NM skins) • Not the same as UKACR rules • ENCR Multiple Primary rules • Time does not matter • Laterality does not matter • Same family of tumour • Lose Clinical Statements e.g. “this is a new primary” • Cross-checks with “Customers” e.g. Breast Screening

  11. Consequences 2Inaccurate Coding • Pathology report generally “dumb down” text description • Centroblastic centrocytic lymphoma gets coded as M95903 NHL • “Carcinoma” used fairly freely • TCC non invasive pTa coded as M81203 • Secondary tumours coded as primary • Adenocarcinoma of Liver M81403 should be M81406

  12. Consequences 3Misleading Information • Site pathologist gives is not true site • Difference in clinician term and cancer registration • Cytology can give misleading information on site and behaviour of tumour • Secondary • Not very precise site • “Sputum” could be lung or elsewhere in respiratory system • Malignant cells from non-malignancy • “in situ” tumour (Breast) • “uncertain” tumour (Bladder)

  13. How do you get round these problems? • Make sure computer system can identify them - source history/audit • Have access to full written pathology and cytology reports (may need hospital notes) • Always check multiple tumours manually • Checks on selected sites • Compare with other algorithms

More Related