cdisc inclusion exclusion standardized coding project l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
CDISC Inclusion/Exclusion Standardized Coding Project: PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
CDISC Inclusion/Exclusion Standardized Coding Project:

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 16

CDISC Inclusion/Exclusion Standardized Coding Project: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

CDISC Inclusion/Exclusion Standardized Coding Project:. ASPIRE: Agreement on Standardized Protocol Inclusion Requirements for Eligibility. Joyce Niland, Lead City of Hope Elly Cohen, Co-Lead UCSF Greg Eoyang, Admin Lead Digital Infuzion

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'CDISC Inclusion/Exclusion Standardized Coding Project:' - Patman

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
cdisc inclusion exclusion standardized coding project

CDISC Inclusion/ExclusionStandardized Coding Project:


Agreement on Standardized Protocol Inclusion Requirements for Eligibility

aspire project participants
Joyce Niland, Lead City of

Elly Cohen, Co-Lead

Greg Eoyang, Admin Lead Digital Infuzion

Lakshmi Grama NIH

Cortney Hayflinger GSK

Robert Wang ClinTrialStat

Jeffrey Suico LLCR

Charles Barr Roche Laboratories Inc

Allen Tien MD Logix

Stanley Kaufman Epimetics

Deborah Price NIH

Valerie Dyer NIH

ASPIRE Project Participants
the challenge we face statistics from oncology
The Challenge We Face:Statistics from Oncology
  • According to the research literature:
    • Over 1.2 million patients are diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. each year
    • Somewhere between 12% and 44% of all cancerpatients are eligible for clinical trial enrollment
    • Only 1% to 3% of eligible patients actuallyparticipate
    • If only 10% of eligible patients participated inoncology clinical trials, trials could be completedmuch more rapidly than the current 3-5 years
      • Corresponding increased rates of new drugdevelopment and availability
potential questions to be answered via standardized coded eligibility criteria
Potential Questions to be Answered via Standardized Coded Eligibility Criteria
  • Patients/Providers/Family Members
    • Does a specific center have an open trial formy condition?
  • Investigators
    • Who and where are my potential collaborators and competitors?
  • Sponsors
    • Where can I run my new trial so that it doesn’toverlap with a center’s other trials?
  • Centers
    • How can we disseminate information to increase and/or expedite patient accrual?
charter mission of the aspire subcommittee
Charter & Mission of the ASPIRE Subcommittee
  • Charter:
    • To serve as a subgroup of the CDISC Protocol Representation Committee, charged with developing proposed standardized method(s)of encoding protocol eligibility criteria, using accepted medical terminology and vocabulary standards
  • Mission:
    • To facilitate more rapid efficient screening of potential participants for available clinical trials worldwide, to help speed the discovery of new interventions to treat, prevent or screen for disease among patients, and to serve as the underpinning for various technical implementations to facilitate subject screening and recruitment
key deliverable pan disease and disease specific coded core eligibility criteria
Key Deliverable: Pan-Disease and Disease-Specific Coded Core Eligibility Criteria
  • Agreement upon a core set of standardized eligibility codes, pan-disease and disease-specific, that cut across many studies
  • Not an attempt to fully code or automate full inclusion/exclusion criteria for protocols
  • Augments protocol registration data
  • Facilitates disease-specific coded searches to “filter” available protocols based on patient’s presenting characteristics

Sample Use Case:

City of Hope Breast Cancer-Specific Protocol Search Filter

pros cons of disease specific coded core eligibility criteria
Pros/Cons of Disease-Specific Coded Core Eligibility Criteria
  • Advantages:
    • Facile / practical to code new protocols; becomes part of electronic instantiation of protocol
    • Rapidly enhances patient/provider capability to identify potential trials while eliminating inappropriate studies, or data mining to ID patients (cast wide net, avoid “false negatives”)
  • Disadvantages:
    • Doesn’t automatically match patient to protocol (very difficult to achieve, timing of tests, experimental tests, etc.)
    • Requires much work to cover many diseases
activities to date and future
Activities to Date and Future
  • To Date:
    • Submitted as official sub-project with HL7 RCRIM
    • Held numerous conference calls to discuss core eligiblity criteria
    • Completed pan-disease criteria, and disease-specific criteria for breast cancer and diabetes
    • Vetted twice with CDISC Protocol Representation Group
    • Harmonized with WHO registry elements, STDM, CDASH Pkg. 2 (and BRIDG in future)
activities to date and future14
Activities to Date and Future
  • Future:
    • Tackling pediatric hypertension as next disease (per CDISC pilot)
    • Joining HL7/OMG Clinical Research Filtered Query project to provide sample use case to exercise the filter message
    • Conducting an evaluation plan using breast cancer criteria:
      • Propose to code all breast cancer trials in PDQ for core eligibility
      • Requesting permission to utilize NCCN database of >30,000 coded breast cancer patients from last 10 years
      • Apply filter algorithm to “match” patients to open protocols and determine yield
      • Follow with “bootstrapping” technique to drop out one criterion at a timeand reevaluate protocol match yield
3 tiers of clinical trial objects

Form B

Form C

3 Tiers of Clinical Trial Objects


Higher RiskProtocol


for Accrual


for Accrual




N – 1slots Available


Conditions met,N slots available

Suggestedfor Protocol





Study ConductTier:



Treatment &



Eligibility Screening



Eligibility Filtering

Data Tier:





Form A

City of Hope