INTRODUCTION: Collecting trial data in a medical environment is at present mostly performed manually and therefore time-consuming, prone to errors and often incomplete with the complex data considered. Faster and more accurate methods are needed to improve the data quality and to shorten data collection times where information is often scattered over multiple data sources. The purpose of this study is to investigate the possible benefit of modern data warehouse technology in the radiation oncology field. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this study, a Computer Aided Theragnostics (CAT) data warehouse combined with automated tools for feature extraction was benchmarked against the regular manual data-collection processes. Two sets of clinical parameters were compiled for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and rectal cancer, using 27 patients per disease. Data collection times and inconsistencies were compared between the manual and the automated extraction method. RESULTS: The average time per case to collect the NSCLC data manually was 10.4 ± 2.1 min and 4.3 ± 1.1 min when using the automated method (p<0.001). For rectal cancer, these times were 13.5 ± 4.1 and 6.8 ± 2.4 min, respectively (p<0.001). In 3.2% of the data collected for NSCLC and 5.3% for rectal cancer, there was a discrepancy between the manual and automated method. CONCLUSIONS: Aggregating multiple data sources in a data warehouse combined with tools for extraction of relevant parameters is beneficial for data collection times and offers the ability to improve data quality. The initial investments in digitizing the data are expected to be compensated due to the flexibility of the data analysis. Furthermore, successive investigations can easily select trial candidates and extract new parameters from the existing databases.
INTRODUCTION: Collecting trial data in a medical environment is at present mostly performed manually and therefore time-consuming, prone to errors and often incomplete with the complex data considered. Faster and more accurate methods are needed to improve the data quality and to shorten data collection times where information is often scattered over multiple data sources. The purpose of this study is to investigate the possible benefit of modern data warehouse technology in the radiation oncology field. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this study, a Computer Aided Theragnostics (CAT) data warehouse combined with automated tools for feature extraction was benchmarked against the regular manual data-collection processes. Two sets of clinical parameters were compiled for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and rectal cancer, using 27 patients per disease. Data collection times and inconsistencies were compared between the manual and the automated extraction method. RESULTS: The average time per case to collect the NSCLC data manually was 10.4 ± 2.1 min and 4.3 ± 1.1 min when using the automated method (p<0.001). For rectal cancer, these times were 13.5 ± 4.1 and 6.8 ± 2.4 min, respectively (p<0.001). In 3.2% of the data collected for NSCLC and 5.3% for rectal cancer, there was a discrepancy between the manual and automated method. CONCLUSIONS: Aggregating multiple data sources in a data warehouse combined with tools for extraction of relevant parameters is beneficial for data collection times and offers the ability to improve data quality. The initial investments in digitizing the data are expected to be compensated due to the flexibility of the data analysis. Furthermore, successive investigations can easily select trial candidates and extract new parameters from the existing databases.
Authors: Mary F Wisniewski; Piotr Kieszkowski; Brandon M Zagorski; William E Trick; Michael Sommers; Robert A Weinstein Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2003-06-04 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Petra Knaup; Sebastian Garde; Angela Merzweiler; Norbert Graf; Freimut Schilling; Ralf Weber; Reinhold Haux Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2005-08-22 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Karen Wong; Shao Hui Huang; Brian O'Sullivan; Gina Lockwood; Darlene Dale; Terry Michaelson; John Waldron; Andrew Bayley; Bernard Cummings; Laura A Dawson; John Kim; Geoffrey Liu; Jolie Ringash Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2010-03-31 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: S M J J G Nijsten; W J C van Elmpt; B J Mijnheer; A W H Minken; L C G G Persoon; P Lambin; A L A J Dekker Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: B B Zaidan; Ahmed Haiqi; A A Zaidan; Mohamed Abdulnabi; M L Mat Kiah; Hussaen Muzamel Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2015-03-03 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Philippe Lambin; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Timo M Deist; Jurgen Peerlings; Evelyn E C de Jong; Janita van Timmeren; Sebastian Sanduleanu; Ruben T H M Larue; Aniek J G Even; Arthur Jochems; Yvonka van Wijk; Henry Woodruff; Johan van Soest; Tim Lustberg; Erik Roelofs; Wouter van Elmpt; Andre Dekker; Felix M Mottaghy; Joachim E Wildberger; Sean Walsh Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2017-10-04 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Stanley H Benedict; Karen Hoffman; Mary K Martel; Amy P Abernethy; Anthony L Asher; Jacek Capala; Ronald C Chen; Bhisham Chera; Jennifer Couch; James Deye; Jason A Efstathiou; Eric Ford; Benedick A Fraass; Peter E Gabriel; Vojtech Huser; Brian D Kavanagh; Deepak Khuntia; Lawrence B Marks; Charles Mayo; Todd McNutt; Robert S Miller; Kevin L Moore; Fred Prior; Erik Roelofs; Barry S Rosenstein; Jeff Sloan; Anna Theriault; Bhadrasain Vikram Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Erik Roelofs; André Dekker; Vincenzo Valentini; Philippe Lambin; Elisa Meldolesi; Ruud G P M van Stiphout Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Tomas Skripcak; Claus Belka; Walter Bosch; Carsten Brink; Thomas Brunner; Volker Budach; Daniel Büttner; Jürgen Debus; Andre Dekker; Cai Grau; Sarah Gulliford; Coen Hurkmans; Uwe Just; Mechthild Krause; Philippe Lambin; Johannes A Langendijk; Rolf Lewensohn; Armin Lühr; Philippe Maingon; Michele Masucci; Maximilian Niyazi; Philip Poortmans; Monique Simon; Heinz Schmidberger; Emiliano Spezi; Martin Stuschke; Vincenzo Valentini; Marcel Verheij; Gillian Whitfield; Björn Zackrisson; Daniel Zips; Michael Baumann Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Cary Oberije; Dirk De Ruysscher; Ruud Houben; Michel van de Heuvel; Wilma Uyterlinde; Joseph O Deasy; Jose Belderbos; Anne-Marie C Dingemans; Andreas Rimner; Shaun Din; Philippe Lambin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tyler S Cole; Jennifer Frankovich; Srinivasan Iyer; Paea Lependu; Anna Bauer-Mehren; Nigam H Shah Journal: Pediatr Rheumatol Online J Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 3.054