Thank you for taking the initiative Ian and Erik. It would be great to have a call for everyone involved in pathology reporting. Depending on the number of interested individuals, I’m happy to assist in finding a suitable timeslot for everyone using Doodle.
Please like this post if you are interested in joining the call.
Late to the party, but we’re currently working on both pathology reporting related to cancer, and also cancer archetypes in general. Lots of discussions. Would be nice to collaborate. Count us in, go through me.
Vebjørn
I would be interested in participating too.
We could probably be present as a team, @johnmeredith.
Thanks
That I missed this discussion last year February is beyond me, but I’m very grateful that @Maurice247 contacted me from Basel to consider cooperating in this venture! We had a great discussion today.
I read the thread with great interest. I’m happy @erik.sundvall shared the concept for data collection in breast cancer pathology as created by the Swedish team, built according to the “Nationell Informationsmodell” (National Information Model (applying UML)), which the Swedish Health Care system uses more broadly. Not an IT person myself, though, I find this model difficult to navigate with regards to the algorithmic approach of a pathology report. Maybe it just takes more getting used to!
I’m very curious to see the work by @mar.perezcolman and the Norwegian team @varntzen.
I was fortunate to be involved in de openEHR CDR project in Sweden that Erik mentioned. Meanwhile, I have been collaborating with SNOMED International to help create a central repository that aligns several international protocols / datasets to SNOMED-CT codes (ICCR, CAP, RCPath, RCPA, Palga). The repository is meant to be fully searchable in a system now being developed as a specific project by IT in the University of Nebraska: this means agreement on the international terms/variables and their S-CT codes to be utilised when building protocols. The world has spun a few times, but a consensus seems to be emerging that the ICCR protocols would be acceptable internationally, and therefore be the model protocols one would aim to construct when designing archetypes in openEHR.
Hopefully I can be of help in the building of archetypes and forms and perhaps share some of the very mundane and non-IT’ish work on the protocols I have done. Personally, I would think that for the development of archetypes we’d easier find common ground in the area of macroscopy than in microscopy. Also, one can wonder whether a simpler protocol such as colon might be a better starting point than breast.
Happy for the momentum as @ian.mcnicoll mentioned! I’ve filled in the Doodle.
I’m also interested in participating and listen to interesting discussions! @sanna.asberg , maybe this could be interesting for you?
We’ve received responses from 6 individuals, and the only overlapping availability is on October 3rd, 10 am - 12 pm CET. Please provide your email address in pm so I can send you a video call invite to block this time.
Additionally, I suggest we outline objectives, the agenda, and potential action points in preparation. Please refer to the Google Docs link and feel free to add your thoughts.
Looking forward to a productive discussion with you!
I’m sorry, but in this utterly hard-working-country-but-still-with-a-lot-of-time-off-such-as-holidays, we have what was known as “potato holidays”. Meaning, children were pulled out of their school to help harvest potatoes. In modern Norway, it still exist, but named “autumn holiday”. To complete the un-convenience for all, this happens in different weeks throughout the country. For my part, Oslo region, this is in week 40. And for Silje in Bergen, week 41 (not sure if she is off or working).
So, unfortunately I’m not available in week 40, I’m off on an isolated island. Not picking potatoes, though.
@varntzen I would guess there will be more than one meeting before pathology modeling is all sorted out 
so you’ll likely get a chance to join later. @Maurice247 can the meeting be recorded and later shared with @varntzen and others missing it?
@erik.sundvall @varntzen I’ll be recording our meeting. Additionally, I’ve prepared a protocol, accessible via the provided link above. This ensures everyone can stay informed and actively contribute.
Good morning -
Apologies for asking this, but I cannot find the meeting invite. Could you forward it to me?
My email is marlene.perezcolman@wales.nhs.uk
Thank you so much!
Hello everyone,
I hope I have successfully invited everyone to this discussion. If not, please feel free to send me a private message.
@SDubois and I have been exploring the creation of universal core archetypes for microscopic reporting, focusing on common elements like tumor presence, tumor diameter, and others. While comparing guidelines for various cancers, finding a consistent and reusable structure seems to be challenging.
In preparation of our meeting, I would like share my thoughts. I was thinking to focus on the actual finding that we want to describe and structure the archetypes accordingly. I believe this method could simplify the creation of a universal template and can be used for multiple microscopic exams . I’ve attached a mind map to further illustrate this idea.
Happy to get your feedback.
Best,
Maurice
Microscopic findings.xmind (294.7 KB)
Hi, unfortunately I won’t be able to attend the meeting but I look forward to watch the recording later on!
/Thérèse
The RCPA synoptic reports are a good attempt to standardise in this area e.g.
A number of years ago we came up with a few templates based on RCPA e.g.
https://ckm.openehr.org/ckm/archetypes/1013.1.381/resourcecentre
The main challenge was in trying ot find commonality at high-level for reporting purpose, whilst accepting that each tumour type and indeed each surgical procedure might require quite different, unique detail.
We tried to create generic archetypes for aspects like Tumour margins but found that this became pretty complex for simple use but not sufficiently detailed for particular tumour types.
This might be a good start for a higher-level ‘reporting driven’ set of models, then allow detailed per-tumour clusters to be plugged in to support frontline care.
I think if I were to attempt this work again, I’d try spend more time on investigation and research. Increasingly in my most complex work, the data patterns are often there if we look hard enough and across enough use cases.
That’s the tension - available time/resources vs. long-term/quality patterns. No easy answer.
Thank you everyone for a great meeting and thank you Maurice and Erik for driving this.
Appended the ICCR protocols with SNOMED-CT bindings I mentioned, as well as the MindMap for macroscopy.
Best regards,
Stefan
general cancer - macr MindMap v1.32.xmind (769.3 KB)
ICCR-CXC-1st-ed-v1_Updated_20230310.docx (506.8 KB)
ICCR-Invasive-Breast-WSC_SNOMED_20230412.docx (883.1 KB)
Thank you all for your contribution today. It is a pleasure to work with likeminded.
Whenever you have a moment, could you kindly review the meeting notes provided in the link above? Once everyone has had a chance to go over it, I’ll post it in this thread, along with the video recording of our session.
It was a really great meeting.
Thanks especially to Maurice who also did all the admin work. We could take turns in doing it. I could schedule next one, and that is my only question regarding the summary, as I don’t think we agreed on a next date.
Cheers
