Page tree

2832 View 9 Comment In discussion Comments enabled In the category: Undefined

Dialogue on development of pathology observables templates

Contributors (4)

9 Comments

  1. Question on a new concept which seems like a '\Presence property but the finding of post-obstructive pneumonitis (clinical finding) is not allowed in Component:

     

    "Status of tumor associated postobstructive pneumonitis in excised lung specimen (observable entity)"

    ISA Observable entity

    COMPONENT (Post-obstructive pneumonia, a finding, is not allowed by MRCM)

    INHERES IN Specimen from lung obtained by lobectomy

    PROPERTY TYPE Presence

    TECHNIQUE Anatomic pathology technique

    SCALE TYPE Ordinal

     

    Please provide guidance on the modeling

    Jim

     

  2. Revisiting some earlier work, I note a discrepancy between LOINC assignment and our definition.  I think that Swapna appropriately deined this as an area fraction which we do not have in Measurement properties, but I also ask if this would be the correct model for observing the fraction of the cancer that was mucinous adenocarcinoma vs (not mucinous) Adenocarcinoma?

     

    Mucinous histologic fraction of excised colon neoplasm  85282-2

    ISA Histologic feature of tumor

    COMPONENT Mucinous adenocarcinoma

    Direct site Formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissue specimen

    INHERENT LOCATION Colon structure

    INHERES IN Malignant neoplasm

    PROPERTY (Area fraction) has this been added to international?

    RELATIVE TO Adenocarcinoma

    TECHNIQUE Light microscopy

    SCALE TYPE Quantitative

  3. Based on our last call and my analysis of the CAP Lung Biomarker worksheet with input from our FISH expert, I note the following observations and suggestions as related to FISH observables.
     

    1. Two specific aspects of FISH are noted in the CAP protocols
      1. Copy number for a gene locus
      2. Structural changes of the chromosome related to a gene locus
      3. Each measure a different property: count (number) and structural change

    2. Copy count which includes polyploidy, diploidy, monoploidy or complete deletion are represented by a count/number property.  Therefore, I suggest the observable be modeled as copy count or number of gene X loci observed.  The answer will be an integer.  

    3. Gene amplification, as reported by FISH, is a copy count in excess of some threshold which can vary.  However, gene amplification is not solicited as part of the CAP protocol.  Its representation does not appear to be necessary.

    4. Structural changes (or rearrangements) measure a different property,  Morphologic abnormality of a chromosome.  The specific changes can be translocations, fusions, inversions, etc.  However, they are all morphologic abnormalities of the chromosome.  The CAP protocols solicit the specific changes, and the answer sets as listed indicate, by nomenclature, what type of change was noted.  The ALK gene is an example.  Other gene loci simply solicit if a rearrangement is present or not.  Example the ROS1 gene.

    5. I propose 2-3 types of observable entities
      1. Copy count
      2. Status of rearrangement
      3. Type of rearrangement

    6. SNOMED CT cell structure defines chromosomal pairs.  Concepts for chromosome by number may be indicated for better modeling
  4. Hi Scott,

    Copy number for a gene locus, is that the number of genes (as in gene amplification) or number of chromosome copies (as in polysomy/polyploidy)?

  5. While  working on the Inception/Elaboration document for this project, I stumbled across a probable error in my work.  I modeled:

    "Status of BRAF V600E sequence variant detection in excised malignant neoplasm of lung (observable entity)"

    IS_A  Tumor biomarker

    DIRECT_SITE Tissue specimen from lung

    INHERENT LOCATION Malignant neoplasm

    INHERES_IN BRAF gene locus

    PROPERTY TYPE Seqeunce variant property

    SCALE TYPE Ordinal value

    TECHNIQUE Nucleotide sequencing technique

    TIME ASPECT Single point in time

    But I think in reality it should probably be:

    "Status of BRAF V600E sequence variant detection in excised malignant neoplasm of lung (observable entity)"

    IS_A  Tumor biomarker

    DIRECT_SITE Tissue specimen from lung

    INHERENT LOCATION Malignant neoplasm

    INHERES_IN BRAF gene locus

    COMPONENT BRAF V600E sequence variant(cell structure)

    PROPERTY TYPE Presence

    SCALE TYPE Ordinal value

    TECHNIQUE Nucleotide sequencing technique

    TIME ASPECT Single point in time

    Please chime in to guide me here!

    Jim

  6. Hi Jim, your updated proposed modeling with the addition of component and property attributes looks good. We do notice a difference between the property type of "Presence" in the modeling and the use of "Status.." rather than "Presence..." in the FSN. In light of the PowerPoint presentation that David Sperzel recently posted and the upcoming discussion of it, we think you should hold off on finalizing this until after that discussion.

  7. Yes, as I have been preparing and expanding the inception/elaboration document for Cancer patholo0gy, I have noticed that I am inconsistent between 'status of' and 'presence of' and need to correct that for consistency in our content and the documentation.  I plan to post updates to the document this weekend for discvussion next Tuesday.  

    Where is the powerpoint from David?

    Jim

    1. David's presentation can be found in a June 5 comment on this page: https://confluence.ihtsdotools.org/x/ootkAg.

  8. Daniel

    Can we conclude on the modeling of the above concept today?  It is part of the templates documentation that I am adding to the Inception/elaboration document for Pathology observables

    Jim