Literature DB >> 25561069

Evaluation of an Automated Information Extraction Tool for Imaging Data Elements to Populate a Breast Cancer Screening Registry.

Ronilda Lacson1,2, Kimberly Harris3, Phyllis Brawarsky3, Tor D Tosteson4, Tracy Onega4, Anna N A Tosteson4,5, Abby Kaye3, Irina Gonzalez3, Robyn Birdwell6,7, Jennifer S Haas3,7.   

Abstract

Breast cancer screening is central to early breast cancer detection. Identifying and monitoring process measures for screening is a focus of the National Cancer Institute's Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) initiative, which requires participating centers to report structured data across the cancer screening continuum. We evaluate the accuracy of automated information extraction of imaging findings from radiology reports, which are available as unstructured text. We present prevalence estimates of imaging findings for breast imaging received by women who obtained care in a primary care network participating in PROSPR (n = 139,953 radiology reports) and compared automatically extracted data elements to a "gold standard" based on manual review for a validation sample of 941 randomly selected radiology reports, including mammograms, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The prevalence of imaging findings vary by data element and modality (e.g., suspicious calcification noted in 2.6% of screening mammograms, 12.1% of diagnostic mammograms, and 9.4% of tomosynthesis exams). In the validation sample, the accuracy of identifying imaging findings, including suspicious calcifications, masses, and architectural distortion (on mammogram and tomosynthesis); masses, cysts, non-mass enhancement, and enhancing foci (on MRI); and masses and cysts (on ultrasound), range from 0.8 to1.0 for recall, precision, and F-measure. Information extraction tools can be used for accurate documentation of imaging findings as structured data elements from text reports for a variety of breast imaging modalities. These data can be used to populate screening registries to help elucidate more effective breast cancer screening processes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BI-RADS; Breast; Data extraction; Information storage and retrieval; Natural language processing

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25561069      PMCID: PMC4570892          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-014-9762-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  37 in total

1.  Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection.

Authors:  R L Birdwell; D M Ikeda; K F O'Shaughnessy; E A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Information from Searching Content with an Ontology-Utilizing Toolkit (iSCOUT).

Authors:  Ronilda Lacson; Katherine P Andriole; Luciano M Prevedello; Ramin Khorasani
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Developing a natural language processing application for measuring the quality of colonoscopy procedures.

Authors:  Henk Harkema; Wendy W Chapman; Melissa Saul; Evan S Dellon; Robert E Schoen; Ateev Mehrotra
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Microcalcifications of the breast: how does radiologic classification correlate with histology?

Authors:  M Müller-Schimpfle; A Wersebe; T Xydeas; A Fischmann; U Vogel; N Fersis; C D Claussen; K Siegmann
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 1.990

5.  Towards a semantic lexicon for clinical natural language processing.

Authors:  Hongfang Liu; Stephen T Wu; Dingcheng Li; Siddhartha Jonnalagadda; Sunghwan Sohn; Kavishwar Wagholikar; Peter J Haug; Stanley M Huff; Christopher G Chute
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2012-11-03

6.  Mammography FastTrack: an intervention to facilitate reminders for breast cancer screening across a heterogeneous multi-clinic primary care network.

Authors:  William T Lester; Jeffrey M Ashburner; Richard W Grant; Henry C Chueh; Michael J Barry; Steven J Atlas
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2008-12-11       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 7.  Role and evaluation of mammography and other imaging methods for breast cancer detection, diagnosis, and staging.

Authors:  S A Feig
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 4.446

8.  Mammographic features of triple receptor-negative primary breast cancers in young premenopausal women.

Authors:  Wei-Tse Yang; Mark Dryden; Kristine Broglio; Michael Gilcrease; Shaheenah Dawood; Peter J Dempsey; Vicente Valero; Gabriel Hortobagyi; Deann Atchley; Banu Arun
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2007-11-17       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Young age at diagnosis correlates with worse prognosis and defines a subset of breast cancers with shared patterns of gene expression.

Authors:  Carey K Anders; David S Hsu; Gloria Broadwater; Chaitanya R Acharya; John A Foekens; Yi Zhang; Yixin Wang; P Kelly Marcom; Jeffrey R Marks; Phillip G Febbo; Joseph R Nevins; Anil Potti; Kimberly L Blackwell
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-07-10       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Radiologist agreement for mammographic recall by case difficulty and finding type.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Megan Smith; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Berta A Geller; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Robert D Rosenberg; Robert A Smith; Edward A Sickles; Sebastien Haneuse; Melissa L Anderson; Bonnie Yankaskas
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 5.532

View more
  10 in total

1.  Integrity of clinical information in computerized order requisitions for diagnostic imaging.

Authors:  Ronilda Lacson; Romeo Laroya; Aijia Wang; Neena Kapoor; Daniel I Glazer; Atul Shinagare; Ivan K Ip; Sameer Malhotra; Keith Hentel; Ramin Khorasani
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2018-12-01       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Assessing Inaccuracies in Automated Information Extraction of Breast Imaging Findings.

Authors:  Ronilda Lacson; Martha E Goodrich; Kimberly Harris; Phyllis Brawarsky; Jennifer S Haas
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  An Efficient Approach for Automated Mass Segmentation and Classification in Mammograms.

Authors:  Min Dong; Xiangyu Lu; Yide Ma; Yanan Guo; Yurun Ma; Keju Wang
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Integrity of clinical information in radiology reports documenting pulmonary nodules.

Authors:  Ronilda Lacson; Laila Cochon; Patrick R Ching; Eseosa Odigie; Neena Kapoor; Staci Gagne; Mark M Hammer; Ramin Khorasani
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2021-01-15       Impact factor: 4.497

5.  Diffusion of digital breast tomosynthesis among women in primary care: associations with insurance type.

Authors:  Cheryl R Clark; Tor D Tosteson; Anna N A Tosteson; Tracy Onega; Julie E Weiss; Kimberly A Harris; Jennifer S Haas
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 4.452

Review 6.  Common data elements of breast cancer for research databases: A systematic review.

Authors:  Esmat Mirbagheri; Maryam Ahmadi; Soraya Salmanian
Journal:  J Family Med Prim Care       Date:  2020-03-26

Review 7.  Desiderata for delivering NLP to accelerate healthcare AI advancement and a Mayo Clinic NLP-as-a-service implementation.

Authors:  Andrew Wen; Sunyang Fu; Sungrim Moon; Mohamed El Wazir; Andrew Rosenbaum; Vinod C Kaggal; Sijia Liu; Sunghwan Sohn; Hongfang Liu; Jungwei Fan
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2019-12-17

8.  A systematic review of natural language processing applied to radiology reports.

Authors:  Arlene Casey; Emma Davidson; Michael Poon; Hang Dong; Daniel Duma; Andreas Grivas; Claire Grover; Víctor Suárez-Paniagua; Richard Tobin; William Whiteley; Honghan Wu; Beatrice Alex
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 2.796

Review 9.  Medical imaging and nuclear medicine: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Authors:  Hedvig Hricak; May Abdel-Wahab; Rifat Atun; Miriam Mikhail Lette; Diana Paez; James A Brink; Lluís Donoso-Bach; Guy Frija; Monika Hierath; Ola Holmberg; Pek-Lan Khong; Jason S Lewis; Geraldine McGinty; Wim J G Oyen; Lawrence N Shulman; Zachary J Ward; Andrew M Scott
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 41.316

10.  Factors Associated With Optimal Follow-up in Women With BI-RADS 3 Breast Findings.

Authors:  Ronilda Lacson; Aijia Wang; Laila Cochon; Catherine Giess; Sonali Desai; Sunil Eappen; Ramin Khorasani
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2019-10-26       Impact factor: 5.532

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.