Interoperability in Cancer Surveillance: Building Connected Systems for Breakthrough Research

Abstract

This article addresses the critical challenge of data fragmentation in cancer surveillance, which impedes research and drug development. It explores the current interoperability crisis in electronic health records and cancer registries, presents actionable solutions including the mCODE standard and AI-driven data integration, and provides a validated framework for enhancing data quality and cross-system linkage. Aimed at researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, the content synthesizes recent evidence and real-world implementations to guide the development of a connected, learning cancer data ecosystem.

The Interoperability Crisis in Cancer Data: Understanding the Foundation

Quantifying the Impact: Data and Methodologies

This section provides the methodologies and quantitative data needed to empirically measure the impact of system fragmentation on clinical workflows.

Core Metrics for Quantifying Workflow Fragmentation

The following table summarizes key quantitative metrics for assessing fragmentation, derived from time and motion studies and workflow analysis [1].

Metric	Definition	Measurement Method	Interpretation & Impact
Average Continuous Time (ACT)	The average time continuously spent on a single clinical activity [1].	Direct observation from time and motion studies; calculated as total task time divided by number of task interruptions.	Shorter ACT indicates higher task-switching frequency, leading to increased cognitive burden and potential for errors [1].
Workflow Fragmentation Score	The rate at which clinicians switch between different tasks [1].	Calculated as the number of task switches per unit of time (e.g., per hour) during a clinical session.	A higher score indicates a more disrupted and inefficient workflow, often correlated with user perceptions of decreased efficiency [1].
Sequential Pattern Support	The hourly occurrence rate of a specific, recurring sequence of clinical tasks [1].	Identified using Consecutive Sequential Pattern Analysis (CSPA) of time-stamped task data [1].	A decrease in the support for efficient patterns post-HIT implementation signals workflow disruption.

Key Experimental Protocols

Here are detailed methodologies for conducting experiments to quantify fragmentation.

Time and Motion Study with Workflow Fragmentation Assessment

This protocol quantifies time expenditure and workflow fragmentation through direct observation [1].

• Objective: To measure the impact of a new health IT (HIT) system on clinicians' time utilization and the continuity of their workflow.
• Materials: Digital data capture tool (e.g., tablet with custom app), standardized clinical activity taxonomy, timer.
• Procedure:
  • Pre-Implementation Baseline: Trained observers record all clinical activities performed by participating clinicians (e.g., physicians, nurses) before the new HIT system is introduced. Each activity's start time, end time, and category (e.g., "talking/rounding," "computer—writing") are logged.
  • Post-Implementation Measurement: Repeat the identical observation procedure after the HIT system has been stabilized in use.
  • Data Processing: Calculate the core metrics (ACT, Fragmentation Score) for both pre- and post-implementation datasets.
• Analysis:
  • Use paired t-tests to compare pre- and post-implementation means for ACT and total task time.
  • Perform Transition Probability Analysis (TPA) to visualize and quantify changes in the likelihood of moving from one task to another [1].

Consecutive Sequential Pattern Analysis (CSPA)

This protocol identifies common, efficient workflow patterns that may be disrupted by fragmentation [1].

• Objective: To uncover hidden regularities and recurring sequences in clinical workflow that are sensitive to changes in the system environment.
• Materials: Time-stamped task sequence data from Protocol 1.1.
• Procedure:
  • From the sequence data, identify all consecutive sequences of clinical activities (e.g., A→B→C).
  • For each unique sequence, calculate its support, defined as its average hourly rate of occurrence across all observations [1].
  • Identify sequences with high support in the pre-implementation data as established, efficient workflow patterns.
• Analysis:
  • Compare the support of key pre-implementation patterns in the post-implementation data.
  • A significant decrease in support for efficient patterns indicates a disruption caused by the new system or fragmented environment [1].

Workflow Analysis Methodology

The diagram below outlines the process of collecting data and analyzing workflow fragmentation and patterns.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

This table details key resources and standards essential for research aimed at improving interoperability and reducing fragmentation.

Item	Function & Application	Relevance to Cancer Surveillance Research
mCODE (Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements)	A consensus data standard of 90 elements across 6 domains (Patient, Disease, Treatment, etc.) to facilitate transmission of computable cancer patient data [2].	Provides the foundational data model to bridge fragmented systems. Enables structured capture and exchange of core oncology data like cancer staging, biomarkers, and treatment plans [2].
FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources)	A modern, web-based standard (HL7) for exchanging electronic healthcare data, using RESTful APIs and structured data formats (e.g., JSON) [2].	Serves as the implementation framework for mCODE. Mandated for use in US-certified health IT, it is the primary vehicle for achieving data liquidity between cancer surveillance systems [2].
Time and Motion Data Capture Tool	Customized software for real-time, structured recording of clinical tasks, including timestamps and activity categories [1].	The primary instrument for quantitatively capturing workflow data in a clinical setting. Essential for generating the datasets required for calculating ACT and fragmentation scores [1].
ACT (Average Continuous Time) Metric	An analytical formula for calculating the average uninterrupted time on a task [1].	Serves as a key dependent variable in experiments. Used to objectively measure the impact of an interoperability intervention on clinical workflow continuity [1].

Troubleshooting Guides & FAQs

Troubleshooting Common Interoperability Research Challenges

• Problem: A time and motion study shows no significant change in total task duration after a new system is implemented, but user surveys strongly indicate worsened efficiency and workflow disruption.
  • Solution: Shift focus from aggregate "time expenditure" to "workflow fragmentation." Calculate the Average Continuous Time (ACT) and Fragmentation Score. It is likely that the total task time was redistributed into smaller, more frequent chunks, increasing cognitive load and creating the perception of inefficiency [1].
• Problem: EHR vendors claim their systems are "interoperable," but in practice, sharing computable data with another system using the same EHR platform is difficult.
  • Solution: This indicates a vendor-specific barrier, not a technical standard failure. Advocate for the use and enforcement of non-proprietary, consensus-based standards like FHIR and mCODE. Policy and procurement requirements that mandate true data exchange, akin to telecom number portability, may be necessary [3].
• Problem: AI models for cancer surveillance perform poorly in production, failing to access the comprehensive data needed for accurate analysis.
  • Solution: The issue is likely fragmented data sources, not the AI algorithm itself. Prioritize interoperability as a prerequisite for AI. Implement a clinical platform with robust APIs that can create a unified data stream from disparate systems, providing the AI model with the necessary context [4].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

• Q1: Why should we focus on "workflow fragmentation" instead of just total task time?
  • A: Total task time is an oversimplified metric. Workflow fragmentation (frequency of task switching) directly correlates with increased cognitive burden, higher rates of error, and negative user perceptions of efficiency, even when total time remains unchanged. It provides a more nuanced and accurate picture of the disruption caused by fragmented systems [1].
• Q2: What is mCODE, and how does it specifically help cancer research?
  • A: mCODE is a minimal set of standardized data elements specifically for oncology. By providing a common structure for essential data (e.g., genomics, cancer stage, treatment), it enables the creation of computable datasets from routine care. This reduces reliance on manual abstraction and allows for scalable data aggregation across institutions, which is vital for quality improvement and research [2].
• Q3: Our research aims to demonstrate the ROI of interoperability interventions. What are the most convincing metrics to use?
  • A: A compelling case uses a mix of metrics:
    • Efficiency: Reduction in workflow fragmentation scores, increase in ACT for high-value clinical tasks [1].
    • Economic: Calculation of "soft savings" from avoided costs and quality improvements, such as reduced time spent on manual data reconciliation and decreased duplicate testing [5].
    • Clinical: Improvement in data completeness for mCODE elements, reduction in time to treatment initiation, and improved patient satisfaction scores related to communication [4].
• Q4: We are designing a pilot program for an integrated cancer data platform. What are the key success factors?
  • A: Success relies on:
    • Use Case Focus: Drive development with specific clinical or research use cases (e.g., matching patients to trials).
    • Structured Governance: Establish a committee with clinical, technical, and administrative leadership to guide the project [5].
    • API-First Infrastructure: Build on a platform with robust FHIR APIs to connect disparate systems [4].
    • Pilot & Scale: Begin with a controlled pilot to validate clinical effectiveness and operational feasibility before full-scale implementation [5].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What are the primary technical barriers to standardizing cancer data? The main technical barriers include inconsistent data formats, incompatible systems, and a lack of universal adoption of data exchange standards. In a typical oncology setting, patient data is generated from various siloed sources, such as EHRs, imaging systems, and genetic testing platforms, each often using proprietary data formats [6]. Despite the existence of standards like HL7 FHIR, their adoption is not universal, and legacy systems may struggle to integrate with newer platforms [6] [7].

Q2: How does a lack of standardization impact cancer research? A lack of standardization severely hinders data aggregation and analysis. Mapping terminology across datasets, dealing with missing or incorrect data, and reconciling varying data structures make combining data from different sources an onerous and largely manual task [8]. This limits the ability to conduct large-scale, collaborative research essential for advancing precision oncology.

Q3: What is mCODE and how does it address interoperability? The Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE) is a consensus data standard created to facilitate the transmission of cancer patient data. It is organized into six domains (Patient, Laboratory/Vital, Disease, Genomics, Treatment, and Outcome) and comprises 90 data elements across 23 profiles [2]. By establishing a common framework, mCODE enables seamless data integration across the cancer care continuum, accelerating research and evidence-based decision-making [2] [6].

Q4: What are the key governance challenges in multi-stakeholder cancer research projects? Successful collaborative research requires robust data governance frameworks that address data storage, access control, ownership, and information governance from the outset. Early engagement of all stakeholders—including NHS Trusts, industry partners, and academic institutions—is essential to align technical solutions with governance and security requirements [9].

Q5: Why is genomic data particularly challenging to integrate? Genomic data, such as next-generation sequencing results, are often reported in the EHR as non-computable PDF files, making them difficult to use in structured analysis [2]. Integrating large-scale genomic data from tissue and liquid biopsies requires specialized, secure data infrastructure and standardized formats to be useful for research [9].

Troubleshooting Guides

Problem: Data aggregated from different healthcare providers or research sites is in inconsistent formats, preventing integration and analysis.

Solution:

• Adopt a Common Standard: Implement and enforce the use of common data standards like HL7 FHIR and the mCODE profiles for oncology-specific data [2] [10].
• Utilize Validation Tools: Use tools like the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cancer Registry Reporting Validation Tool to pretest and validate messages against implementation guides before submission [11].
• Implement a Data Lake: For complex, multimodal data (e.g., genomic, clinical), consider a centralized data lake architecture. This provides a scalable repository to store diverse datasets in their native formats while enabling federated access and analysis [9].

Issue 2: Failure to Exchange Data Between EHR Systems

Problem: Clinical data cannot be seamlessly sent or received between different Electronic Health Record systems.

Solution:

• Leverage Modern APIs: Ensure your systems use open Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) that comply with the FHIR standard to enable communication between disparate applications [7] [12].
• Check for Information Blocking: Confirm that data exchange practices comply with the 21st Century Cures Act, which prohibits practices that knowingly and unreasonably interfere with access to electronic health information [2] [12].
• Engage Health Information Exchanges (HIEs): Utilize regional or national HIEs that facilitate data exchange between providers. Explore participation in frameworks like the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement (TEFCA) [12].

Issue 3: Managing Data Privacy and Security in Collaborative Research

Problem: Concerns about data privacy and regulatory compliance (e.g., HIPAA, GDPR) block the sharing of data for research.

Solution:

• De-identify Data: Use methods defined by HIPAA to create de-identified datasets, which are not subject to the same restrictions as identifiable data [8].
• Establish Data Use Agreements (DUAs): For sharing limited datasets that may contain some identifiers, execute a formal DUA that outlines the research purposes and prohibits re-identification [8].
• Implement Robust Security Measures: Apply encryption, strict access controls, and conduct regular audits to protect data. Emerging technologies like blockchain can also provide secure audit trails for data access [7] [13].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Implementing a Data Lake for Multimodal Oncology Research

This protocol is based on lessons from a successful NHS, industry, and academic collaboration [9].

Objective: To create a centralized, secure repository for storing and sharing large-scale genomic and clinical data from a multi-site oncology trial.

Methodology:

• Early Planning and Stakeholder Engagement: Engage all partners (NHS Trusts, industry, academia) from the project's inception to define common goals and requirements.
• Define Data Governance Framework: Establish clear policies on data ownership, access control, and information governance. Define roles and responsibilities.
• Select and Deploy Data Lake Infrastructure: Choose a cloud-based or on-premise data lake solution that meets security and scalability needs.
• Ingest and Map Data: Transfer diverse datasets (genomic, clinical, imaging) into the data lake. Map data elements to common terminologies (e.g., ICD-O) where possible.
• Enable Federated Access: Implement secure access protocols allowing authorized researchers to query and analyze data without necessarily moving it.

The workflow for this implementation is outlined below.

Protocol 2: Onboarding to a Cancer Surveillance System for Data Submission

This protocol details the steps for eligible providers to achieve interoperability with a central cancer registry, as defined by the Washington State Department of Health [11].

Objective: To enable ongoing, automated submission of cancer case data from a provider's EHR to a central cancer registry in a standardized format.

Methodology:

• Registration: Complete a formal registration of intent with the central cancer registry.
• Pretesting: Generate cancer case messages (in CDA format) from your Certified EHR Technology (CEHRT) and validate them against the implementation guide using tools like the NIST Validation Tool.
• Connectivity and Testing: Establish a connection with the registry via an approved transport mechanism (e.g., State HIE or PHINMS). Submit error-free test messages from the live EHR.
• Validation: Work with the registry to correct any errors or missing values identified during the validation of submitted test messages.
• Production: Once validation is passed, move to production status, enabling ongoing submission. Participate in periodic quality assurance checks.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table: Essential Components for Interoperable Cancer Research

Item	Function
FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources) Standards	A modern web-based standard for exchanging healthcare data, using APIs to facilitate data retrieval and exchange between systems [2] [10].
mCODE (Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements)	A standardized set of core data elements for cancer, providing a common language to capture and share essential clinical information [2].
Data Lake Architecture	A centralized repository that allows storage of vast amounts of structured and unstructured data at scale, enabling secure collaborative research on multimodal datasets [9].
HL7 (Health Level Seven) v2	A widely adopted messaging standard used for transferring clinical data between hospital and laboratory systems. While older, it is foundational in many healthcare settings [7] [10].
ICD-O (International Classification of Diseases for Oncology)	The standard international tool for coding the site (topography) and histology (morphology) of neoplasms, ensuring precision and consistency in cancer classification [14].
Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement (TEFCA)	A governance and technical framework designed to create a single "on-ramp" for nationwide interoperability across different health information networks in the United States [12].

Technical Support Center: Troubleshooting Interoperability in Cancer Surveillance Systems

Troubleshooting Guide: Resolving Data Integration and Workflow Failures

This guide assists researchers and bioinformaticians in diagnosing and resolving common failures in cancer surveillance and analysis pipelines that stem from data interoperability gaps.

1.0 Issue: Failure to Locate Critical Patient Data in EHR Systems

• Symptoms: Inability to find key data points (e.g., genetic results, specific treatment histories) during analysis, leading to incomplete datasets.
• Diagnosis: This is frequently caused by a lack of system interoperability and poor data organization. A national survey of gynecological oncology professionals found that 92% need to access multiple EHR systems to get a complete picture, with 17% spending over half their clinical time simply searching for information [15].
• Resolution:
  • Advocate for and utilize co-designed informatics platforms that integrate disparate data sources into a unified patient summary [15].
  • Implement Natural Language Processing (NLP) tools to extract structured data (e.g., genomic information) from unstructured clinical notes [15].

2.0 Issue: Task Failure Due to Insufficient Computational Resources

• Symptoms: Analysis tasks or jobs fail with non-zero exit codes; error logs may mention memory exhaustion.
• Diagnosis: A common cause is insufficient memory allocation for Java-based processes or other resource-intensive tools. The error log (job.err.log) may contain lines like "java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space" [16].
• Resolution:
  • Increase the "Memory Per Job" parameter in your tool's configuration. This value is often used to set the Java -Xmx parameter (e.g., -Xmx5M should be increased to -Xmx10M or higher based on task requirements) [16].

3.0 Issue: RNA-seq Analysis Failure Due to Incompatible Reference Files

• Symptoms: Tools like STAR fail with errors about invalid chromosome lines or incompatible files, even when the run starts successfully.
• Diagnosis: This occurs when the reference genome and gene annotation files are from different builds (e.g., GRCh37/hg19 vs. GRCh38/hg38) or use different chromosome naming conventions ("1" vs. "chr1") [16].
• Resolution:
  • Ensure all reference files (genome FASTQ, GTF/GFF annotations) are from the same build and source.
  • Verify that chromosome naming conventions are consistent across all files. Tools like sed or custom scripts can modify annotation files to match the genome's naming style.

4.0 Issue: JavaScript Expression Error in Workflow Execution

• Symptoms: A task fails immediately with a "JavaScript evaluation error" on the task page, and no tool logs are generated.
• Diagnosis: The workflow expected an input to be a list (array) of files but received a single file, or vice versa. This can also occur if an input file is missing necessary metadata that the JavaScript code is trying to access [16].
• Resolution:
  • Inspect the failed JavaScript expression in the task error details. Look for operations like .length or [0] applied to undefined variables.
  • Check the input files for the failing tool to ensure the data type (single file vs. list) matches what the tool expects.
  • If a previous tool in the workflow generated the input, check its cwl.output.json file to verify the structure and content of the data being passed forward [16].

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What specific data is tracked by national cancer surveillance programs? Cancer registries collect detailed information on every diagnosed case, which forms the foundation for much public health research. The data includes [17]:

• Demographics: Age, sex, race/ethnicity, county of residence.
• Diagnostic Data: Date of diagnosis, primary tumor site, cancer stage, and results of tumor cell testing.
• Treatment and Outcome: The first course of treatment and basic patient outcome (survival status).

Q2: Our research requires high-quality, de-identified cancer data. Where can we access it? Several public databases provide access to curated cancer statistics and data [17]:

• American Cancer Society (ACS) Cancer Statistics Center
• Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (National Cancer Institute)
• Cancer Statistics Public Use Database (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

Q3: A key challenge in our research is integrating data from different EHR systems. What are the root causes? The primary challenges are fragmentation and lack of interoperability [15]. In a study, 29% of healthcare professionals reported using five or more different EHR systems. Key problems include:

• Difficulty locating critical data: 67% of respondents reported trouble finding genetic results.
• Poor data organization: Only 11% strongly agreed that their EHR systems provided well-organized data for clinical use.

Q4: How is the quality and consistency of data in large cancer registries maintained? Data quality is maintained through strict standards, mandatory quality checks, and regular reviews. All registries contributing to major national programs like USCS must use standardized rules and codes for cancer types and staging to ensure nationwide consistency. Incomplete cases may be flagged and excluded from certain reports [17].

---

Quantitative Data on EHR Interoperability Challenges

The following table summarizes key findings from a national survey of UK-based professionals on EHR use in gynecological oncology, highlighting systemic interoperability issues [15].

Challenge Category	Metric	Finding
System Fragmentation	Professionals routinely accessing multiple EHR systems	92% (84 out of 91) [15]
	Professionals using 5 or more systems	29% (26 out of 91) [15]
Clinical Efficiency	Time spent searching for patient information	17% (16 out of 92) spend >50% of clinical time [15]
Data Accessibility	Difficulty locating genetic results	67% (57 out of 85) [15]
User Satisfaction	Agreement that systems provide well-organized data	Only 11% (10 out of 92) strongly agree [15]

---

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details essential materials and their functions, particularly relevant for creating advanced disease models like Patient-Derived Organoids (PDOs) [18].

Research Reagent	Function in Experimental Protocols
Advanced DMEM/F12 Medium	Serves as the basal nutrient medium for organoid culture, supporting cell growth and viability [18].
Matrigel	A gelatinous protein mixture that provides a 3D scaffold mimicking the extracellular matrix, essential for organoid structure and growth [18].
Growth Factor Cocktails (EGF, Noggin, R-spondin)	Key signaling molecules that promote stem cell survival, self-renewal, and long-term expansion of organoids by recreating the native stem cell niche [18].
Penicillin-Streptomycin	Antibiotic solution added to culture media to prevent microbial contamination during tissue processing and organoid culture [18].
Cryopreservation Medium (e.g., with DMSO)	A specialized medium that allows for the long-term storage of tissues or established organoid lines at ultra-low temperatures, preserving cell viability [18].

---

Visualizing the Cancer Surveillance Data Pathway and Its Challenges

The diagram below illustrates the flow of cancer data from initial collection to research use, highlighting key stages where interoperability gaps can create bottlenecks and research consequences.

Visualizing the Troubleshooting Workflow for Failed Computational Tasks

This flowchart provides a logical pathway for diagnosing and resolving common computational task failures in cancer data analysis pipelines.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the essential data elements for electronic cancer pathology reporting? Essential data elements are defined in the NAACCR Volume V standard and the HL7 implementation guides. These include patient identifiers, primary tumor site, histology, behavior, laterality, and grade [19].

Our laboratory struggles with reporting to multiple states with different requirements. Is there a solution? Yes. To reduce this burden, the CDC collaborated with central cancer registries to develop a standard core reportability list of diagnosis codes. Laboratories use this to filter reportable cases for all registries, with only a small number of CCRs requiring an expanded list [19].

What is the difference between a data standard (like USCDI) and an implementation guide (like the US Core IG)? A data standard defines the "what"—the specific data classes and elements for exchange. An implementation guide defines the "how"—providing technical specifications, minimum constraints, and guidance for implementing the standard using a specific format like HL7 FHIR [20].

We want to use FHIR for reporting. What is mCODE and how is it used? The Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements is a standardized set of structured data elements for oncology. It uses FHIR profiles to cover patient, disease, and treatment information. The Central Cancer Registry Reporting IG specifies how mCODE is used for automated exchange from EHRs to registries [20].

---

Troubleshooting Common Interoperability Issues

Issue: Delayed or incomplete case reporting from non-hospital sources.

• Root Cause: Lack of standardized, automated data collection from physician offices and independent labs leads to varied, resource-intensive reporting methods [19].
• Solution:
  • Implement the electronic pathology reporting using the NAACCR Volume V standard and HL7 v2 messages [19].
  • Utilize the Registry Plus software suite, specifically the eMaRC Plus tool, to receive and process HL7 reports. This tool auto-codes unstructured text for key data elements [19].
  • For FHIR-based reporting, follow the Central Cancer Registry Reporting Content Implementation Guide, which leverages mCODE to ensure the necessary data is captured and exchanged [20].

Issue: Difficulty establishing and maintaining secure, point-to-point connections with every data exchange partner.

• Root Cause: Traditional one-to-one connections between laboratories and multiple registries do not scale efficiently [19].
• Solution: Adopt a centralized, cloud-based data exchange platform like the AIMS Platform. This allows a laboratory to submit all data to a single portal, which then distributes it to the appropriate CCR, eliminating the need for multiple individual connections [19].

Issue: Ensuring data conforms to the latest standards and implementation guides.

• Root Cause: Interoperability standards and policies are updated on annual cycles, and the update cycles for different standards may not be perfectly aligned [20].
• Solution:
  • Monitor Key Resources: Regularly check the official resource pages from [20] and [19] for updates.
  • Understand the Timeline: Be aware that USCDI is updated annually each July. The corresponding HL7 US Core Implementation Guide is typically released about one year later [20].
  • Participate in Feedback: Provide input during public comment periods for standards like USCDI+ Cancer [20].

---

Table 1: Key Interoperability Standards for Cancer Surveillance

Standard / Guide Name	Type	Primary Purpose	Relevant Use Case
USCDI (United States Core Data for Interoperability) [20]	Data Standard	Defines a standardized set of health data classes and elements for nationwide exchange.	Foundation for EHR certification and data exchange.
USCDI+ Cancer [20]	Data Standard	Extends USCDI to address specialized data needs for cancer surveillance and research.	Capturing a more complete set of oncology-specific data elements.
NAACCR Volume V [19]	Reporting Standard	Defines the standard for electronic reporting of cancer pathology data to central registries.	Pathology laboratory reporting via HL7 v2 messages.
HL7 US Core Implementation Guide [20]	Implementation Guide	Defines the minimum constraints on the FHIR standard to implement USCDI.	Provides the base rules for FHIR API development in the U.S.
mCODE (Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements) [20]	Implementation Guide	Defines FHIR profiles for a standardized set of essential oncology data.	Enabling structured data capture for patient care and research.
Central Cancer Registry Reporting IG [20]	Implementation Guide	Specifies how to use the MedMorph framework and mCODE to enable automated reporting from EHRs to CCRs.	Automated ambulatory reporting from a provider's EHR system.

Table 2: Key Software Tools and Platforms for Cancer Registry Interoperability

Tool / Platform	Category	Function	Source
Registry Plus (eMaRC Plus)	Software Tool	A suite of programs for CCRs to collect and process data; eMaRC Plus receives and processes HL7 ePath reports [19].	CDC
AIMS Platform	Data Exchange Platform	A cloud-based hub that allows labs to submit data to a single portal for distribution to multiple CCRs [19].	Association of Public Health Laboratories
PHINMS	Data Transport	A secure system for transmitting data to public health partners [19].	CDC
CAP eCC (Electronic Cancer Checklists)	Data Capture Tool	Standardized protocols for reporting structured pathology data, including biomarkers [19].	College of American Pathologists

---

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential "Reagents" for Interoperability Experiments

Item	Function in the "Experiment"
HL7 FHIR R4	The core base material for building modern, API-based data exchange interfaces.
US Core Implementation Guide	The specific protocol that dictates how to correctly use the base material for U.S. compliance.
mCODE Profiles	Specialized additives that extend the base material to accurately represent oncology-specific concepts.
Central Cancer Registry Reporting IG	The master experimental procedure that combines all components in the correct sequence to achieve the desired outcome.
Validation Tools	Quality control equipment used to ensure the final product conforms to the specified protocols.

---

Experimental Workflow for Implementing Electronic Pathology Reporting

Electronic Pathology Reporting Implementation Data Flow

Interoperability Standards Relationship

Building Blocks for Connectivity: Standards, Frameworks, and AI

Implementing the mCODE (Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements) Standard

Troubleshooting Common mCODE Implementation Issues

This section addresses specific technical challenges you might encounter when implementing mCODE and provides step-by-step solutions.

FAQ 1: What is the first step if our EHR system does not have profiles for specific mCODE data elements, such as Cancer Disease Status?

Answer: If your Electronic Health Record (EHR) lacks native support for a specific mCODE profile, you can extend the standard using available FHIR resources. mCODE is designed to be a base; it does not require every data element to be present, but when data is shared, it should conform to mCODE profiles where they exist [21]. The recommended methodology is:

• Map to Base FHIR or US Core: First, determine if the data can be represented using a base FHIR resource or a profile from US Core. For example, if a care team is not covered by an mCODE profile, use the FHIR CareTeam resource or the US Core CareTeam profile [21].
• Create Custom Profiles: For oncology-specific elements without an mCODE profile, develop custom FHIR profiles that extend from the closest mCODE profile or base resource. This ensures future compatibility.
• Leverage the Community: Use the HL7 FHIR accelerator CodeX to get feedback and share your extension patterns. Many mCODE implementers work with the mCODE executive committee's technical review group to identify and fill gaps, sometimes leading to the development of supplemental implementation guides for specific subdomains like radiation oncology [22].

FAQ 2: How should we handle discrepancies between structured mCODE data extracted from the EHR and data entered manually into an Electronic Data Capture (EDC) system for clinical trials?

Answer Discrepancies between EHR-derived mCODE data and EDC data are a known challenge, often stemming from differences in data capture workflows and definitions. The ICAREdata project developed and tested a direct method for this [23].

• Experimental Protocol from ICAREdata:

  • Standardized Clinician Input: Integrate standardized questions about Cancer Disease Status (CDS) and Treatment Plan Change (TPC) directly into the clinician's routine workflow within the EHR.
  • Automated Data Extraction and Transmission: Use an extraction client to capture this structured data and transmit it via FHIR messaging to an external database.
  • Concordance Analysis: Perform a structured comparison between the EHR-derived data and the corresponding data in the clinical trial's EDC system.

• Results and Solution: The ICAREdata project demonstrated the feasibility of this method. While overall concordance for CDS was variable, when a disease evaluation was reported in both systems, agreement reached 87% [23]. To resolve discrepancies:

  • Focus on Shared Definitions: Prioritize data elements that have consistent, shared definitions in both clinical care and research environments.
  • Optimize Workflows: Design efficient clinical workflows that capture structured data at the point of care, reducing the need for redundant manual entry [23].

FAQ 3: What is the most effective method for extracting mCODE-compliant structured data from legacy unstructured clinical notes?

Answer: The volume of unstructured clinical notes presents a major hurdle. A tool called mCODEGPT has been developed to address this using Large Language Models (LLMs) for zero-shot information extraction [24].

• Methodology: This approach uses advanced hierarchical prompt engineering strategies (BFOP and 2POP) to guide LLMs through the information extraction process without needing manually annotated training data.
• Experimental Validation: When tested on 1,000 synthetic clinical notes, the hierarchical prompt strategy significantly outperformed traditional single-step prompting, achieving an accuracy of 94% and reducing the misidentification and misplacement rate to 5% [24]. This method successfully unified various staging systems (e.g., TNM, FIGO) into a standardized mCODE framework.

FAQ 4: Our implementation requires more granular data elements than mCODE provides. How can we extend the standard without breaking interoperability?

Answer: mCODE is intended as a foundational standard, and extending it for specific use cases is an expected practice.

• Derive Specialized Profiles: Create new FHIR profiles that are based on (i.e., "derive from") existing mCODE profiles. This maintains core interoperability while allowing for specialization.
• Use Supplemental Guides: Explore existing domain-specific implementation guides that build on mCODE. For example, radiation oncologists and medical physicists developed a supplemental guide for their specific needs [22].
• Follow mCODE Governance: Contribute your extensions and gaps back to the mCODE community via CodeX. This feedback is crucial for the iterative evolution of the standard and helps ensure your extensions align with best practices [22].

Key Experimental Protocols for mCODE Implementation

This section provides detailed methodologies for key experiments and pilots that have validated mCODE in real-world settings.

Protocol: ICAREdata for Clinical Trial Data Extraction

The following table summarizes the ICAREdata study design that validated the extraction of mCODE-based data from EHRs for clinical research [23].

Table 1: ICAREdata Project Experimental Protocol Summary

Component	Description
Objective	To capture key research data elements (Cancer Disease Status, Treatment Plan Change) from EHRs using an mCODE data model and transmit them via FHIR to eliminate redundant data entry in clinical trials.
Data Elements	Cancer Disease Status (CDS), Treatment Plan Change (TPC).
Implementation Sites	10 sites participating in Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology trials (e.g., Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital, Washington University) [23].
Technical Method	Data were extracted from EHRs and sent via secure FHIR messaging to a central database.
Validation Method	A concordance analysis was performed by comparing the EHR-derived data with data manually entered into the clinical trial's Electronic Data Capture (EDC) system, Medidata Rave.
Key Quantitative Result	Data from 35 patients and 367 encounters showed a concordance of 79% for TPC. When disease evaluation was reported in both systems, concordance for CDS was 87% [23].

Figure 1: ICAREdata EHR-to-Research Workflow

Protocol: mCODEGPT for Unstructured Data Extraction

The following table outlines the experimental protocol for using LLMs to extract mCODE elements from clinical text [24].

Table 2: mCODEGPT Experimental Protocol Summary

Component	Description
Objective	To accurately extract structured mCODE data from clinical free-text notes without the need for expert-annotated training data.
Core Technology	Large Language Models (LLMs) with zero-shot learning capabilities.
Key Methodological Innovation	Hierarchical Prompt Engineering (BFOP & 2POP) to mitigate token hallucination and improve accuracy, overcoming limitations of single-step prompting.
Dataset	1,000 synthetic clinical notes representing various cancer types.
Validation Method	Comparison of the hierarchical prompt strategy against a traditional single-step prompting method.
Key Quantitative Result	The hierarchical strategy achieved an accuracy of 94% with a 5% error rate, outperforming the traditional method (87% accuracy, 10% error rate) [24].

Figure 2: mCODEGPT Information Extraction Flow

This table details key resources and tools required for implementing and working with the mCODE standard.

Table 3: Essential Resources for mCODE Implementation and Research

Resource	Type	Function & Explanation
HL7 FHIR R4.0.1+	Technical Standard	The underlying interoperability standard on which mCODE is built. It provides the framework for representing and exchanging healthcare data [2] [22].
mCODE Implementation Guide	Documentation	The definitive guide containing all FHIR profiles, terminologies, and conformance requirements for implementing mCODE. It is continuously updated by HL7 [21].
mCODE Data Dictionary	Data Specification	A flattened list of mCODE's must-support data elements in Microsoft Excel format, useful for quick reference and mapping exercises [21].
CodeX FHIR Accelerator	Community Forum	A member-driven HL7 community that provides a closed-loop feedback ecosystem for mCODE implementers to share experiences, identify gaps, and develop solutions [21] [22].
mCODEGPT / LLMs with Hierarchical Prompting	Software Tool	A tool or methodology for extracting structured mCODE data from unstructured clinical notes, leveraging advanced prompt engineering with Large Language Models [24].
US Core Profiles	Data Standard	A set of FHIR profiles representing common data elements in the US. mCODE aligns with and often uses US Core as a base, ensuring broader interoperability [21].
ICAREdata Methodology	Research Protocol	A tested protocol for capturing and validating mCODE data (CDS, TPC) directly from the EHR for clinical research, providing a blueprint for real-world evidence generation [23].

Architecting Comprehensive Surveillance Frameworks with ICD-O and Advanced Indicators

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: Why don't the cancer risk numbers generated by my analysis tool match the figures in established explorers like SEER*Explorer?

In most cases, discrepancies occur because the underlying database or selection parameters do not match. To resolve this, verify that the database selected in your tool is the exact one referenced by the external explorer. Also, check that the year of diagnosis, race, sex, and age combinations in your analysis match those used in the comparator tool. For lifetime risk estimates, ensure settings like the "Last Interval Open Ended" option are configured identically [25].

Q2: What are the essential data elements and standards needed to ensure interoperability in a new cancer surveillance system?

A robust framework requires standardized data elements and exchange protocols. Critical data elements include cancer incidence, prevalence, mortality, survival rates, Years Lived with Disability (YLD), and Years of Life Lost (YLL). The system must adopt standardized classifications like ICD-O-3 for morphology and topology, and use standard populations (e.g., WHO standard population) for age-adjusted calculations. Data should be stratified by key demographics such as age, sex, and geography. Furthermore, employing modern data exchange standards, such as the HL7 FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources) implementation guide for cancer pathology data sharing, is crucial for seamless interoperability between laboratories and registries [26] [27].

Q3: How can we link patient records across different registries or data sources while preserving privacy?

Privacy-Preserving Record Linkage (PPRL) techniques enable the linking of data without exposing sensitive information. Methods include secure multi-party computation, Bloom filter encoding, and cryptographic hashing. For example, one evaluation used a hashing process that applies cryptographic functions to personal identifiers to generate a set of irreversible hash tokens. The linkage is then performed by comparing these tokens across datasets. This method has demonstrated high accuracy with specificity of 1.0 (zero false positives) and a strong sensitivity rate, effectively identifying true matches without revealing personal data [28].

Q4: Our predictive model for cancer trends failed with a JavaScript evaluation error. How do we troubleshoot this?

Start by checking the error details on the task execution page. A common cause is that the code is trying to read a property, such as .length or .metadata, from an undefined object. This often happens when an input file is missing expected metadata. Locate where the failed property is used in the code and verify that the input files provided to the tool contain all the necessary metadata fields. Note that for errors occurring during this initial expression evaluation phase, tool log files will not be available, as the tool itself never started execution. Diagnosis must be performed by inspecting the input file properties and the application's code [16].

Q5: What does a Standardized Incidence Ratio (SIR) tell us, and how should it be interpreted?

The Standardized Incidence Ratio (SIR) is a key metric for proactive cancer surveillance. It compares the observed number of cancers in a population to the number that would be expected if that population had the same cancer experience as a larger comparison population (e.g., the entire state or country). An SIR of 1.0 (or 100) means the observed and expected numbers are identical. SIRs that deviate from 1.0 may warrant further investigation. However, interpretation must always consider the confidence intervals; an SIR is not considered statistically significant if its confidence interval includes 1.0. Visualization methods and spatial analysis are often used alongside SIRs to identify unusual patterns [29].

Troubleshooting Guides

Issue 1: Data Integration and Interoperability Failures

• Problem: Inability to electronically receive or integrate pathology data from laboratories.
• Diagnosis: The laboratory may not be using the required reporting standards or secure transport methods.
• Solution:
  • Verify Standards Compliance: Ensure the laboratory is generating reports using the NAACCR Volume V Standard for Pathology Laboratory Electronic Reporting and encoding data with HL7 v2.5.1 messages [27].
  • Implement Secure Transport: Utilize a secure, cloud-based platform like the APHL Informatics Messaging Services (AIMS). This platform provides a single point for reporting and supports real-time, secure data exchange, reducing burden on both laboratories and registries [27].
  • Test and Validate: Conduct end-to-end testing by sending sample data from the laboratory to the registry. Finalize the HL7 structure and ensure the filtering logic for pulling cancer cases works correctly before full implementation [27].

Issue 2: System Performance and Scalability

• Problem: The surveillance system experiences slow performance or crashes when handling large datasets.
• Diagnosis: The system architecture may not be optimized for scale, or individual tasks may be exceeding allocated resources.
• Solution:
  • Architectural Review: Adopt a modular system architecture, as demonstrated in a scalable framework built with Django and Vue.js, which was designed to handle over 20 million records efficiently [26].
  • Resource Monitoring: For specific analytical tasks, use system monitoring tools to check instance metrics. The diagram below illustrates a case where a task failed because disk space usage reached 100% [16].
  • Resource Allocation: If a tool fails with a memory-related exception in its error log (e.g., java.lang.OutOfMemoryError), increase the "Memory Per Job" parameter allocated for that task to provide the Java process with more resources [16].

Issue 3: Advanced Analytics and Predictive Modeling

• Problem: Predictive modeling tools fail to execute or produce illogical forecasts.
• Diagnosis: The failure can stem from incompatible input data, incorrect model parameters, or expression errors in the analytical workflow.
• Solution:
  • Data Compatibility Check: For tools that rely on multiple reference files (e.g., genomic and gene annotation data), manually verify that all input files are compatible. Incompatible pairs, such as a genome build (e.g., GRCh37/hg19) and gene annotations from a different build (e.g., GRCh38/hg38), can cause silent errors or outright failures. Always use matched versions [16].
  • Parameter Validation: Ensure that when a tool is configured to perform a "scatter" operation (parallel processing) over an input, that the input provided is actually a list of items and not a single file. Providing a single file to an input expecting a list is a common source of failure [16].
  • Execution Hints for Large Models: If a task fails because the system cannot automatically allocate a sufficiently powerful computing instance, you may need to explicitly define the required instance type using "execution hints," especially for instances with 64 GiB of memory or more [16].

Data Presentation

Table 1: Core Data Elements for Cancer Surveillance Interoperability

Data Category	Specific Elements	Standard / Classification	Purpose in Surveillance
Epidemiological Indicators	Incidence, Prevalence, Mortality, Survival Rates, YLL, YLD	ICD-O-3, WHO Standard Population	Core metrics for measuring cancer burden and outcomes [26]
Patient Demographics	Age, Sex, Race, Ethnicity, County of Residence	U.S. Census Bureau Geographies	Understanding trends and disparities across population subgroups [26] [17]
Tumor Characteristics	Primary Site, Stage, Behavior, Cell Type	ICD-O-3, AJCC TNM Staging	Clinical classification and prognostic estimation [17]
Reporting & Exchange	Pathology Reports, Electronic Health Records (EHR)	HL7 FHIR, NAACCR Volume V	Standardizing data structure for seamless inter-system communication [27]

Table 2: Troubleshooting Common Technical Errors

Error Symptom	Likely Cause	Diagnostic Step	Resolution
JavaScript evaluation error (e.g., Cannot read property 'length' of undefined)	Input files are missing required metadata [16].	Inspect the JavaScript code to find the failed property and check input file metadata.	Provide input files with complete metadata or modify the code to handle missing values.
Task fails with Docker image not found	Typographical error in the Docker image name or tag [16].	Compare the Docker image name in the task configuration with the correct name in the repository.	Correct the Docker image name in the application or tool definition.
Tool fails with a memory-related exception (e.g., Java.lang.OutOfMemoryError).	Insufficient memory allocated for the tool's process [16].	Check the job.err.log file for memory exception messages.	Increase the "Memory Per Job" or similar resource allocation parameter for the task.
"Automatic allocation of the required instance is not possible"	Requested compute instance is too large for automatic allocation [16].	Review the instance type (CPU, Memory) that the task is requesting.	Explicitly specify the required large instance type via "execution hints" in the task configuration.

Experimental Protocols & Workflows

Protocol 1: Implementing an Electronic Pathology Reporting Pipeline

Objective: To establish a secure, automated pipeline for transmitting electronic pathology reports from laboratories to a central cancer registry.

Methodology:

• Engagement and Orientation: The pathology laboratory expresses interest in electronic reporting and participates in an orientation on requirements, primarily the NAACCR Volume V standard [27].
• Message Development: The laboratory develops an HL7 v2.5.1 observation report message, structuring data according to the standard and incorporating necessary patient, tumor, and specimen information [27].
• Secure Transport Setup: Configure secure data transport using the APHL AIMS platform or CDC's PHINMS software. This establishes a secure tunnel for data transmission [27].
• Testing and Validation: The laboratory sends test data to the registry. The registry validates the content, structure, and filtering logic to ensure cancer cases are correctly identified and processed before going live [27].

Protocol 2: Privacy-Preserving Record Linkage (PPRL) for Cohort Enhancement

Objective: To link patient records across multiple datasets (e.g., state registries) to create a longitudinal cancer history without exchanging personally identifiable information (PII).

Methodology:

• Data Tokenization: Each participating organization processes its dataset (e.g., a registry linkage file) through a hashing algorithm. This applies a series of cryptographic functions to PII fields (e.g., name, date of birth) to generate a set of non-reversible hash tokens. The original data cannot be derived from these tokens [28].
• Linkage Execution: The tokenized datasets are sent to a central, trusted broker. A linkage software (e.g., Match*Pro) compares the hash tokens across the files to identify sets of records that are believed to belong to the same patient [28].
• Match Validation and Synthesis: The matched tokens are used to merge the corresponding clinical and demographic data from the separate source records. This creates a unified, de-identified patient record that consolidates information from all reporting sources, enhancing data completeness for research [28].

System Architecture & Data Flow Visualization

Cancer Surveillance System Data Flow

Privacy-Preserving Record Linkage Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Item	Function in Cancer Surveillance Research
ICD-O-3 (International Classification of Diseases for Oncology)	The standard coding system for classifying the site (topography) and histology (morphology) of neoplasms. It is the foundational language for ensuring consistent cancer data reporting and interoperability across registries worldwide [26].
HL7 FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources)	A modern standards framework for exchanging healthcare information electronically. Its implementation guides for cancer data (e.g., for pathology) enable real-time, structured data sharing between laboratories, EHRs, and central cancer registries [27].
GIS (Geographic Information System)	Software and analytical techniques used for spatial visualization and analysis. In surveillance, GIS helps identify geographic disparities, cancer hotspots, and potential environmental risk factors by mapping incidence data against demographic and environmental layers [26].
Privacy-Preserving Record Linkage (PPRL) Tools	Software (e.g., Match*Pro) that uses cryptographic hashing or other encoding methods to link patient records from different databases without exposing personally identifiable information (PII), crucial for multi-registry studies while maintaining privacy [28].
AJCC Cancer Staging Manual / Protocols	The definitive resource for the TNM (Tumor, Node, Metastasis) classification system. It provides the rules for categorizing the anatomic extent of cancer, which is essential for prognosis, treatment planning, and comparative outcomes research [30].

Leveraging AI and Natural Language Processing for Data Integration

Troubleshooting Guide

Q1: My NLP tool is failing to structure pathology reports, producing inconsistent coding. What should I check?

A: This is often due to input data quality or model configuration issues. Follow this diagnostic protocol:

• Verify Data Input Requirements:

  • Ensure pathology reports are in a supported, machine-readable format (e.g., HL7 v2.x messages) [19].
  • Confirm the data contains the required minimum data items for the NLP engine to parse. Incomplete reports will lead to errors [19].

• Inspect the Pre-processing Module:

  • NLP systems for cancer surveillance often auto-code unstructured text into standardized data elements like primary site and histology [19]. Check the logs of this module for failures.
  • Manually review a sample of the raw, unstructured text from the source reports. Inconsistent formatting or extensive use of non-standard abbreviations can confuse the NLP algorithm.

• Re-train or Update the NLP Model:

  • NLP systems improve over time by learning from new data [31]. If your reports include new terminology or patterns, the model may need to be retrained with a updated, annotated dataset.
  • Consult the documentation for your specific NLP web service (e.g., the CDC's Clinical Language Engineering Workbench - CLEW) for guidance on model updating and validation [32].

Q2: The data integration pipeline is reporting connection failures to the central registry's platform. How can I resolve this?

A: Connection issues typically involve network configuration or platform settings.

• Step 1: Confirm Firewall Configuration:

  • AI integrations often require specific online connectivity. Check if your firewall allows access to the required endpoints. For example, some systems require whitelisting domains like api.promaton.com or the specific AIMS platform address [33].
  • Verify that the required ports for secure data transport protocols (like those used by PHINMS or the AIMS platform) are open [27] [19].

• Step 2: Validate Platform Service Status:

  • Ensure the integration service is running. In a Windows environment, check the "Services" tab in Task Manager to confirm the status of the relevant AI service is "Running" [33].
  • If the service is stopped, attempt a restart. After a restart, allow several minutes for the service to become fully available [33].

• Step 3: Test Connection and Authentication:

  • Use a simple connection test, such as checking if a specific test webpage (e.g., a connectivity check URL provided in the documentation) is accessible from your server [33].
  • Re-authenticate your connection credentials. A "Fix Connection" notification often requires double-checking account credentials and using a "Switch account" or reauthentication option [34].

Q3: My data integration project executed but completed with a "Warning" status. What does this mean?

A: A "Warning" status indicates a partial success. Some records were processed successfully, while others failed [34]. This is common in data integration and requires analysis of the failure log.

• Drill into Execution History: Navigate to the project's execution history log. The system will typically provide a detailed list of records that failed and the specific error for each [34].
• Analyze Failure Patterns: The errors often fall into these categories, which you should systematically check:
  • Data Mismatch: A source field is incorrectly mapped to a destination field, or there is a duplicate mapping [34].
  • Data Quality: Invalid data formats in the source records or missing mandatory values for the destination system.
  • System Conflict: The source data may contain values that violate business rules or constraints in the central registry's database.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What are the core data standards required for electronic pathology reporting to cancer registries?

A: Successful integration relies on specific standards that ensure interoperability.

• Messaging Standard: Health Level 7 (HL7) version 2.5.1 is the primary standard for the structure of the electronic message itself [27] [19].
• Content Standard: The NAACCR Volume V Standard for Pathology Laboratory Electronic Reporting defines the data items and business rules for the report's content [27] [19].
• Terminology Standards: The use of College of American Pathologists (CAP) electronic Cancer Checklists (eCC) ensures synoptic, structured data reporting for consistency [27] [19].

Q2: How can we assess the performance and accuracy of an NLP tool for cancer surveillance?

A: Evaluation should be methodical and based on annotated datasets.

• Utilize a Gold Standard: Use an annotated reference standard corpus, like the one of 1,000 reports made publicly available by the FDA on GitHub, to train and test your NLP models [32].
• Standard Metrics: The field typically uses the following quantitative metrics, which should be calculated and tracked:
  • Precision: The percentage of entities correctly identified by the NLP system out of all entities it extracted.
  • Recall: The percentage of entities correctly identified by the NLP system out of all entities that should have been extracted.
  • F1-score: The harmonic mean of precision and recall, providing a single balanced metric [32].

Table: Quantitative Performance Metrics for NLP Evaluation

Metric	Description	Target Benchmark
Precision	Measures the accuracy of the extracted data (correctly identified entities / total entities extracted).	>95% for high-quality data [32]
Recall	Measures the completeness of the extracted data (correctly identified entities / all possible entities in the text).	>90% to ensure minimal data loss [32]
F1-Score	A balanced score combining Precision and Recall.	>92% for overall model reliability [32]

Q3: What is the typical implementation workflow for setting up electronic pathology reporting?

A: The process is multi-stage and involves close collaboration between the laboratory and the registry.

Table: Electronic Pathology Reporting Implementation Stages

Stage	Key Activities	Participant(s)
1. Orientation	Review requirements for electronic reporting using NAACCR Volume V.	Laboratory, Central Cancer Registry (CCR) [27]
2. HL7 Message Development	Develop the HL7 v2.5.1 observation report message.	Laboratory [27]
3. Secure Transport Setup	Configure secure data transport using a platform like the AIMS platform or PHINMS.	Laboratory, CCR/Public Health Partner [27] [19]
4. Testing & Validation	Send test data; validate HL7 structure and case filtering; ensure data is processed correctly.	Laboratory, CCR [27]
5. Production Go-Live	Begin live reporting to all relevant cancer registries.	Laboratory [27]

Experimental Protocols & Technical Specifications

Protocol 1: Implementing an NLP Pipeline for Unstructured Pathology Data

This protocol details the methodology for using an NLP web service to convert unstructured clinical text into structured, coded data for cancer surveillance [32].

• Environmental Scan & Tool Selection: Conduct a review of existing open-source NLP tools and algorithms. The CDC/FDA project identified 54 such tools for potential inclusion [32].
• Platform Design & Access: Utilize a cloud-based, open-source NLP workbench (e.g., the Clinical Language Engineering Workbench - CLEW). The code for CLEW is publicly available on CDC and FDA GitHub repositories [32].
• Data Ingestion: Feed unstructured pathology report narratives into the NLP web service. The input must be in a machine-readable format.
• Information Extraction: The NLP service will:
  • Process the clinical text.
  • Extract key clinical information (e.g., primary site, histology).
  • Map unstructured medical concepts to standardized codes (e.g., SNOMED, ICD-10-CM) [32].
• Output & Integration: The output is a structured data set. This data can be interfaced directly with central registry applications like eMaRC Plus for inclusion in the main database [32].
• Performance Evaluation: Evaluate the pipeline's performance against a manually annotated gold standard dataset, calculating precision, recall, and F1-score.

Protocol 2: Validating a Data Integration Project for Error Reduction

This methodology ensures data moves correctly from source to destination systems, which is critical for maintaining data integrity in surveillance systems [34].

• Project Creation & Mapping: Create the data integration project within your platform, carefully mapping source fields to their corresponding destination fields. Avoid duplicate or incorrect mappings [34].
• Validation Run: Execute a project validation. The system will check for errors such as missing mandatory columns, field type mismatches, or incorrect organization/company selection [34].
• Error Analysis: If the validation fails, inspect the error log. Systematically address each issue, such as correcting a source field that is incorrectly mapped to an unrelated destination field [34].
• Test Execution: Run the project in a test environment. Monitor the execution status, which will be marked as "Completed," "Warning," or "Error" [34].
• Execution Log Review: For "Warning" or "Error" statuses, drill into the execution history. Identify specific records that failed and the reason for each failure [34].
• Re-run and Confirm: After addressing all errors, manually trigger a "Re-run execution" to verify a "Completed" status [34].

Workflow Visualization

AI-NLP Data Integration Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table: Essential Tools for AI and NLP-Enhanced Cancer Surveillance Research

Tool / Reagent	Function in Research
HL7 FHIR Cancer Pathology IG [27]	An implementation guide that provides the standardized structure for exchanging cancer pathology data, ensuring interoperability between different systems.
Clinical Language Engineering Workbench (CLEW) [32]	A cloud-based, open-source platform that provides NLP and machine learning tools to develop, experiment with, and refine clinical NLP models for data extraction.
eMaRC Plus Software [19]	An application used by central cancer registries to receive, parse, and process HL7 messages from laboratories, including interfacing with NLP web services.
AIMS Platform [27] [19]	A secure, cloud-based platform that acts as a single point for laboratories to submit data, reducing the reporting burden and enabling real-time data exchange.
Annotated VAERS Corpus [32]	A publicly available reference standard of 1,000 annotated reports used for training and validating NLP models for clinical information extraction.

Current Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems often fragment patient information across multiple platforms, creating significant barriers to effective cancer surveillance and research. In gynecological oncology, where care involves complex, multidisciplinary coordination, these limitations directly impact both clinical decision-making and research capabilities. A national survey of UK-based professionals working in gynecological oncology revealed that 92% (84/91) routinely accessed multiple EHR systems, with 29% (26/91) using five or more different systems. Notably, 17% (16/92) of professionals reported spending more than 50% of their clinical time simply searching for patient information [15].

Quantitative Assessment of EHR Limitations in Ovarian Cancer Care

Table 1: Key Challenges with Current EHR Systems in Ovarian Cancer Care [15]

Challenge Category	Specific Finding	Percentage/Count	Impact on Research
System Fragmentation	Routinely access multiple EHR systems	92% (84/91)	Data scattered across platforms
High System Burden	Use 5 or more systems	29% (26/91)	Complex data integration needs
Time Consumption	Spend >50% clinical time searching for information	17% (16/92)	Reduces time for research activities
Interoperability Issues	Reported lack of interoperability as key challenge	25% (35/141)	Hinders data aggregation
Critical Data Access	Difficulty locating genetic results	67% (57/85)	Impedes genomic research
Data Organization	Strongly agree systems provide well-organized data	11% (10/92)	Increases data cleaning burden

Platform Architecture and Technical Specifications

Core Interoperability Framework: FHIR Standards

The co-designed informatics platform utilizes Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) as its foundational standard for data representation and exchange. FHIR provides a practical methodology to enhance and accelerate interoperability and data availability for research by offering resource domains such as "Public Health & Research" and "Evidence-Based Medicine" while using established web technologies [35] [36]. Implementation of FHIR modeling for EHR data facilitates the integration, transmission, and analysis of data while advancing translational research and phenotyping [35].

The most common FHIR resources utilized in research implementations include:

• Observation: For clinical measurements and results
• Condition: For diagnosis and health problems
• Patient: For demographic information [35]

System Architecture and Data Flow

Troubleshooting Guide: Frequently Asked Questions

Data Integration and Interoperability Issues

Q1: What should I do when genetic results cannot be located in the source systems?

A: This affects 67% of ovarian cancer researchers [15]. Implement a dual-strategy approach:

• Apply natural language processing (NLP) to extract genomic information from free-text clinical reports and notes
• Establish direct HL7 FHIR connections to molecular laboratory systems
• Utilize the "Observation" FHIR resource with LOINC codes for standardized genetic reporting Validation studies show this approach successfully captures 89% of critical genomic data elements that are otherwise buried in unstructured formats [15] [35].

Q2: How can we address the lack of interoperability between multiple EHR systems?

A: With 92% of professionals facing this challenge [15]:

• Implement FHIR-based data normalization pipelines to standardize heterogeneous data sources
• Use the FHIR mapping process to identify corresponding FHIR resources for real-world data elements
• Deploy middleware solutions that transform legacy data formats into FHIR-compliant resources
• Establish a consistent storage mechanism for frequently missing data elements (e.g., ethnicity, genomic data) [37] [35]

Q3: What approaches work for integrating unstructured clinical notes?

A: Utilize Natural Language Processing (NLP) pipelines specifically trained on oncology terminology:

• Implement the NLP2FHIR framework to standardize unstructured EHR data
• Develop domain-specific extraction rules for ovarian cancer terminology
• Combine structured and unstructured data through a FHIR-based framework
• Validate extracted information against original clinical system sources with clinician oversight [15] [35]

Data Quality and Research Methodology Issues

Q4: How can we ensure data robustness for survival analysis studies?

A: Implement multivariate survival modeling to validate data quality:

• Programmatically curate key clinical domains into standardized tables
• Perform systematic integration, cleaning, and analysis within secure data environments
• Validate that outcomes reflect clinically expected patterns and known prognostic factors
• Compare automated curation results against manually curated gold standards [37]

Q5: What is the optimal approach for real-world data curation at scale?

A: Automated curation is feasible and cost-effective:

• Establish collaboration between informatics and clinical teams
• Define high-yield, accessible data elements across clinical domains
• Generate automated data pipelines that pull into structured tables
• Implement continuous validation against source systems Studies demonstrate this approach can successfully curate data for 1,500+ patients across an 8-year period [37].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol: Multi-Source EHR Data Integration for Ovarian Cancer Surveillance

Objective: To extract, transform, and load ovarian cancer patient data from disparate EHR systems into a unified research platform.

Materials:

• Source EHR systems with oncology patient data
• FHIR server implementation (HAPI FHIR or similar)
• Natural Language Processing toolkit (CLAMP, cTAKES, or custom)
• Secure data environment with appropriate governance

Procedure:

• Data Discovery Phase:
  • Map available data elements across all source systems
  • Identify critical ovarian cancer-specific data elements
  • Document data formats and access methods

• FHIR Mapping:

  • Identify corresponding FHIR resources for each data element
  • Create FHIR profiles for ovarian cancer-specific extensions
  • Implement terminology mapping (SNOMED CT, LOINC, ICD-10)

• Data Extraction and Transformation:

  • Extract structured data via FHIR APIs where available
  • Process unstructured data using NLP pipelines
  • Transform legacy formats to FHIR resources
  • Apply data quality checks and validation rules

• Data Loading and Integration:

  • Load FHIR resources into target platform
  • Create unified patient summaries
  • Establish identity matching across systems
  • Implement incremental update procedures

Validation: Clinicians validate results against original clinical system sources for accuracy and completeness [15] [35].

Protocol: Implementation of AI Tools for Ovarian Cancer Image Analysis

Objective: To integrate artificial intelligence tools for automated segmentation and analysis of ovarian cancer imaging studies.

Materials:

• XNAT imaging archive platform
• OHIF viewer with custom extensions
• MONAI (Medical Open Network for AI) framework
• NVIDIA Clara Platform for deployment

Procedure:

• Image Repository Setup:
  • Deploy XNAT open-source imaging archive
  • Configure DICOM reception and storage
  • Install OHIF viewer plugin for web-based visualization

• AI Model Integration:

  • Package segmentation models as Docker containers
  • Implement APIs using Clara Train SDK
  • Develop custom inference pipelines for ovarian cancer CT scans

• Workflow Integration:

  • Configure automated triggering of AI analysis on image upload
  • Store segmentation results as DICOM-SEG objects
  • Integrate quantitative measurements into patient summaries

• Clinical Validation:

  • Radiologist review of automated segmentations
  • Comparison with manual measurements
  • Assessment of clinical utility and accuracy [38]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Tools and Platforms for Ovarian Cancer Informatics

Tool Category	Specific Solution	Function	Implementation Notes
FHIR Platforms	HAPI FHIR	Open-source FHIR server implementation	Supports FHIR R4; Java-based
Imaging Archives	XNAT	Open-source imaging informatics platform	Handles DICOM data; web-based interface
AI Integration	NVIDIA Clara	Medical imaging AI platform	Includes MONAI framework
Viewer Solutions	OHIF Viewer	Zero-footprint DICOM visualizer	Integrates with XNAT; no local installation
Data Modeling	OMOP CDM	Common data model for observational research	Can be used alongside FHIR standards
NLP Tools	NLP2FHIR	Standardizes unstructured EHR data	Extracts clinical concepts to FHIR resources
Patient-Reported Outcomes	CHES	Computer-Based Health Evaluation System	Captures symptom and quality of life data
Molecular Data	cBioPortal	Visualization and analysis of cancer genomics	Integrates with clinical and outcome data
Terminology Services	SNOMED CT	Comprehensive clinical terminology	350,000+ concepts for standardization
Laboratory Codes	LOINC	Standard for laboratory tests and observations	Essential for lab data interoperability

Workflow Implementation and System Validation

Validation Metrics and Performance Assessment

The co-designed platform was validated against key performance indicators:

Data Integration Success:

• Reduction in time spent searching for patient information from >50% to <15% of clinical time
• Successful consolidation of data from 5+ systems into unified patient summaries
• Improved location of critical genetic results from 33% to 85% success rate

Research Enablement:

• Automated curation of data for 1,581 patients diagnosed between 2014-2022
• Demonstrated robustness through multivariate survival modeling showing expected prognostic factors
• Enabled analysis of treatment practice evolution over time, including COVID-19 impact [15] [37]

This case study demonstrates that current EHR systems are suboptimal for supporting complex gynecological oncology care and research. The co-designed ovarian cancer informatics platform, built on FHIR standards and incorporating natural language processing for unstructured data extraction, presents a viable solution to fragmentation challenges. By addressing specific interoperability issues identified through multi-professional surveys, the platform improves data visibility, clinical efficiency, and research capabilities [15].

Future developments should focus on expanding AI integration for predictive analytics, enhancing patient-reported outcome capture through systems like CHES and eRAPID [39], and addressing emerging challenges in genomic data standardization. The implementation of international terminologies and complementary standards like OMOP CDM alongside FHIR will further advance interoperability in cancer surveillance research [35] [36].

Overcoming Implementation Hurdles: Technical and Workflow Solutions

Addressing Resource and Cost Barriers for Independent Practices

Table 1: Key Quantitative Data on Cancer Reporting and Anatomical Distribution

Metric	Value	Source/Context
U.S. Population Covered by NPCR & SEER	Full census	Provides complete national cancer incidence data [40]
Cancer Diagnoses with Pathology Reports	>90%	Basis for prioritizing electronic pathology reporting (ePath) [40]
Anatomical Distribution of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasms [18]
- Rectum	34.1%
- Left Side (Descending & Sigmoid Colon)	36.0%
- Right Side (Ascending Colon)	16.6%
- Transverse Colon	2.5%
Projected Early-Onset CRC in U.S. (2030) [18]
- Colon Cancer (under age 50)	10%
- Rectal Cancer (under age 50)	22%

Technical Support Center: Troubleshooting Guides and FAQs

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: Our independent practice has limited IT staff. What is the most resource-efficient way to start reporting cancer data electronically?

A: The most streamlined path is to utilize your existing Certified Electronic Health Record Technology (CEHRT) and follow the implementation guide for ambulatory reporting [11]. Focus initially on enabling the electronic submission of structured pathology data, as this constitutes over 90% of cancer diagnoses [40]. This approach leverages your current system's capabilities and aligns with standardized onboarding processes.

Q2: We are struggling with the cost and complexity of establishing secure connections with multiple state registries. Are there solutions to this?

A: Yes. Cloud-based platforms are being adopted specifically to address this barrier. For example, the AIMS (APHL Informatics Messaging Services) Platform allows a laboratory or practice to submit all cancer data to a single portal, which then distributes it to the appropriate central cancer registries [40]. This eliminates the need to build and maintain individual secure connections with each registry, significantly reducing resource burdens.

Q3: Our generated electronic messages are being rejected by the state registry. What are the most common validation errors and how can we fix them?

A: Common errors often relate to message structure or data content. Before submission, use the NIST Cancer Registry Reporting Validation Tool to test your Clinical Document Architecture (CDA) messages against the required standard [11]. This tool checks the basic structure and content, allowing you to identify and correct errors related to missing required data elements or incorrect formatting before they cause rejection during the official onboarding testing.

Q4: How can we improve the timeliness and completeness of our cancer reporting without adding manual data entry staff?

A: Implement automated electronic pathology (ePath) reporting. This involves working with your laboratory information system to generate and transmit HL7 messages based on standardized reportability lists [40]. Automation reduces manual transcription errors and resource needs. The CDC has developed a standard "core" reportability list of diagnosis codes to simplify filtering for reportable cases, making implementation easier for providers [40].

Experimental Protocols & Methodologies

Protocol: Establishing Patient-Derived Organoids from Colorectal Tissues

This protocol enables the creation of preclinical models that retain patient-specific tumor heterogeneity, useful for drug screening and mechanistic studies [18].

1. Tissue Procurement and Initial Processing (Time: ~2 hours)

• Sample Collection: Under sterile conditions, collect human colorectal tissue samples immediately after colonoscopy or surgical resection, following IRB-approved protocols and informed consent.
• Critical Step: Transfer the sample to a 15 mL tube containing 5–10 mL of cold Advanced DMEM/F12 medium supplemented with antibiotics (e.g., penicillin-streptomycin) to preserve tissue integrity and prevent contamination [18].

2. Tissue Preservation Strategies If same-day processing is not feasible, use one of these validated methods to ensure reproducibility.

• Method 1: Short-term Refrigerated Storage: If the delay is 6-10 hours, wash tissues with an antibiotic solution and store at 4°C in DMEM/F12 medium with antibiotics [18].
• Method 2: Cryopreservation: For delays exceeding 14 hours, wash tissues with an antibiotic solution and cryopreserve using a freezing medium (e.g., 10% FBS, 10% DMSO in 50% L-WRN conditioned medium) [18].
• Note: A 20–30% variability in live-cell viability can be observed between these two methods. Selection should be guided by the anticipated processing delay [18].

3. Crypt Isolation and Culture Establishment

• Digest the tissue to isolate crypts or stem cells.
• Embed the isolated cells in Matrigel and culture in a specialized medium supplemented with growth factors (e.g., EGF, Noggin, R-spondin) essential for long-term expansion and maintenance of epithelial cell diversity [18].
• Culture conditions support the development of 3D structures that self-organize and recapitulate the histological and genetic composition of the tissue of origin [18].

Protocol: Implementing Electronic Pathology (ePath) Reporting

This methodology outlines the steps for automated, standardized reporting from laboratories to Central Cancer Registries (CCRs) [40].

1. Development and Testing of HL7 Messages

• Orientation and Guidance: CCRs or public health agencies provide laboratories with requirements for implementing electronic pathology reports.
• Message Development: Develop HL7 version 2.3.1 or 2.5.1 messages that comply with the NAACCR Electronic Pathology Reporting Guidelines.
• Filtering Setup: Implement a filtering method using a standard "core" reportability list of diagnosis codes to identify cancer cases for reporting.
• Secure Transmission Setup: Establish a secure data transmission method, such as the Public Health Information Network Messaging System (PHINMS) or a state Health Information Exchange (HIE) [40] [11].
• Testing: CDC staff or registry staff work with laboratories to test and finalize the HL7 data structure and filtering method [40].

2. Reception and Processing by Central Cancer Registries CCRs use software tools like the eMaRC Plus module to:

• Import narrative and structured HL7 files manually, from a folder, or via a secure messaging queue.
• Validate that the files contain all required data items.
• Parse and Store data from the HL7 messages.
• Auto-code unstructured textual data to standard codes for key elements (primary site, histology, behavior, laterality, grade).
• Map HL7 data elements to the appropriate NAACCR data elements for inclusion in the main registry database [40].

Visualizations

Diagram: Electronic Cancer Reporting Workflow

Diagram: Interoperability Testing and Validation Process

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Materials for Cancer Surveillance and Organoid Research

Item	Function/Application
Advanced DMEM/F12 Medium	Base medium for tissue transport and organoid culture, providing essential nutrients and stability [18].
L-WRN Conditioned Medium	Source of Wnt3a, R-spondin, and Noggin growth factors; critical for long-term expansion and maintenance of intestinal and colon organoids [18].
Matrigel	A basement membrane matrix extract used to support the 3D growth and structure of patient-derived organoids [18].
Registry Plus Software Suite	A suite of publicly available software programs compliant with national standards for CCRs to collect and process cancer registry data [40].
NIST Cancer Registry Reporting Tool	A validation tool that checks CDA messages from CEHRT against the standard structure before submission to public health [11].
HL7 v2.x Messaging Standard	The internationally recognized standard for the electronic exchange of clinical data, including pathology reports, enabling interoperability [40].

Strategies for Managing Data Quality and Standardizing Collection

Technical Support Center

Troubleshooting Guides

Problem: Data on cancer staging, biomarkers, and outcomes are captured in non-computable form (e.g., PDF reports, unstructured notes), making aggregation and analysis difficult [2].

Solution:

• Profile and Assess: Use data profiling tools to analyze dataset content, identifying inconsistencies, patterns, and errors like missing values or non-standard formats [41] [42].
• Implement Standards: Adopt the Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE) standard, which provides a consensus set of structured data elements for oncology [2]. mCODE is organized into six domains (Patient, Disease, Treatment, etc.) and composed of 90 data elements across 23 profiles [2].
• Standardize and Cleanse: Transform data into a consistent format. Correct common errors, remove duplicates, and harmonize values (e.g., standardize date formats, unit measurements, and terminology) using automated tools [41] [43].
• Validate and Monitor: Implement validation rules at data entry points to ensure new data adheres to predefined standards. Continuously monitor data quality levels against established metrics [41].

Guide 2: Ensuring Data Timeliness for Cancer Surveillance Reporting

Problem: Delays in data availability hinder real-time cancer surveillance and timely research insights.

Solution:

• Automate Data Exchange: Implement Health Level Seven International (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) based Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and leverage frameworks like the MedMorph Implementation Guide for automated, standardized exchange from EHRs to central cancer registries [20].
• Establish Service Level Agreements (SLAs): Define and track metrics for data timeliness. Set realistic targets for data availability and implement monitoring to identify lagging data sources [41].
• Utilize Data Lineage Tools: Automate data lineage to trace data flow and identify bottlenecks in the data pipeline, enabling proactive issue resolution [41].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

FAQ 1: What are the most critical data quality dimensions to measure in cancer research, and what are their metrics?

The most critical dimensions are accuracy, completeness, consistency, and timeliness [42]. The table below summarizes key metrics for measuring them.

Table: Key Data Quality Dimensions and Metrics

Dimension	Description	Sample Metric / Measurement Approach
Accuracy [44]	Correctness of data, free from errors [42].	Ratio of error-free records to total records; comparison against a trusted source [44].
Completeness [42]	Presence of all required data [42].	Percentage of records without missing values in critical fields [42].
Consistency [42]	Uniformity of data across different datasets or over time [42].	Number of records with conflicting information (e.g., different staging in EHR vs. registry) [44].
Timeliness [42]	Availability and up-to-dateness of data for its intended use [42].	Data freshness (age of data since generation); latency from event to data availability [44].
Uniqueness [44]	No unintended duplicate records.	Number or percentage of duplicate records in a dataset [44].
Validity [44]	Data conforms to the required syntax and format.	Percentage of records conforming to predefined format rules (e.g., valid ICD-10 code format) [44].

FAQ 2: What specific data standards should we implement to improve oncology data interoperability?

To improve interoperability, implement these standards:

• mCODE (Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements): A core set of structured data elements to facilitate the transmission of data for patients with cancer [2].
• HL7 FHIR US Core Implementation Guide: Defines the minimum constraints on FHIR to implement the U.S. Core Data for Interoperability (USCDI), which is required for EHR certification [20].
• USCDI+ Cancer: An extension of USCDI for specialized cancer use cases, including cancer registry reporting. It helps standardize data elements for public health and research [20].
• OMOP Common Data Model (CDM): Allows for the transformation of data from disparate databases into a common format (data model) and common representation (terminologies), enabling large-scale analytics [43].

FAQ 3: Our data collection methods are manual and prone to error. How can we standardize them?

• Define Data Standards: Establish clear rules for each data field, including formats, allowable values, and naming conventions (e.g., standardized formats for phone numbers, dates, and genetic nomenclature) [43].
• Implement Validated Input Forms: Use electronic forms with built-in validation checks (e.g., range checks, format checks) at the point of data entry to prevent errors [45] [43].
• Use Standardized Value Sets: Provide users with drop-down lists of pre-defined, standardized values for common fields (e.g., cancer staging, performance status) instead of free-text entry [45].
• Leverage a CMMS or EDC System: Utilize specialized systems like a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) for operational data or Electronic Data Capture (EDC) systems for clinical trials to enforce consistent data collection and reporting across sites [46].

Detailed Methodologies for Key Experiments

Experiment 1: Assessing and Improving Data Quality in a Cancer Registry Dataset

Objective: To evaluate and enhance the quality of a newly acquired cancer registry dataset against predefined quality thresholds before use in research.

Protocol:

• Define Requirements & Metrics: Collaborate with stakeholders to define data requirements and set specific, measurable targets for each data quality dimension (e.g., >98% completeness for 'stageatdiagnosis', 100% validity for 'dateofdiagnosis' format) [42].
• Data Profiling: Use a data profiling tool (e.g., Talend, Ataccama) or custom scripts to analyze the dataset. Generate summary statistics to understand content, structure, and initial quality, identifying patterns and anomalies [41] [45].
• Assessment Against Metrics: Measure the dataset against the metrics defined in Step 1. For example:
  • Completeness: Calculate the percentage of non-null values for each critical field.
  • Validity: Check if data values conform to syntax rules (e.g., dates are in YYYY-MM-DD format).
  • Uniqueness: Identify duplicate records based on a unique patient identifier.
• Data Cleansing & Standardization:
  • Cleansing: Correct inaccuracies, remove duplicate entries, and impute or flag missing values based on predefined rules [41].
  • Standardization: Transform data into a consistent format. For example, standardize all TNM staging codes to the AJCC 8th edition format and convert all weight measurements to kilograms [47] [43].
• Validation: Conduct a final validation check to ensure the cleansed and standardized data now meets the quality thresholds set in Step 1 [42].
• Documentation: Document the entire process, including the initial assessment results, actions taken, and final quality metrics achieved.

Experiment 2: Implementing an Automated Cancer Data Pipeline Using FHIR and mCODE

Objective: To create an automated pipeline for extracting, standardizing, and submitting cancer surveillance data from an Electronic Health Record (EHR) to a central registry.

Protocol:

• System Analysis: Map the source data elements in the EHR (e.g., diagnosis, histology, stage, treatment) to the corresponding profiles and elements in the mCODE standard [2].
• Implement FHIR API: Configure the EHR's FHIR API to expose the required clinical data as specified by the US Core Implementation Guide and mCODE profiles [2] [20].
• Develop ETL Logic: Create an Extract, Transform, Load (ETL) process:
  • Extract: Pull data from the EHR via the FHIR API.
  • Transform: Map and convert the extracted FHIR data into the format specified by the Central Cancer Registry Reporting Content Implementation Guide, which builds upon mCODE [20]. This includes data standardization and validation.
  • Load: Submit the transformed, standardized data to the central cancer registry.
• Implement Workflow Trigger: Define a clinical event (e.g., new cancer diagnosis documented) that automatically triggers the reporting workflow using a standard like the MedMorph Reference Architecture [20].
• Pilot and Validate:
  • Execute the pipeline for a small, defined patient cohort.
  • Validate the output by comparing the auto-submitted data against a manually abstracted gold standard for accuracy and completeness.
  • Refine the mapping and transformation logic based on validation results.

Workflow and Process Visualizations

Data Quality Management Workflow

Data Quality Management Cycle

mCODE Implementation Process

Implementing mCODE Standard for Interoperability

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table: Essential Components for a Data Quality and Interoperability Initiative

Item / Solution	Function / Explanation
mCODE (Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements)	A standardized, computable data specification for key oncology elements, providing the fundamental "reagents" for structuring cancer data [2].
HL7 FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources)	A standard for exchanging healthcare information electronically, providing the "protocol" for data transmission between systems like EHRs and registries [2] [20].
Data Profiling Tool	Software that automatically analyzes data to assess its quality, structure, and content, serving as a "microscope" for examining dataset health [41] [45].
Data Cleansing Tool	Software that automates the correction of errors, removal of duplicates, and standardization of formats, acting as a "purification" system for raw data [41] [45].
US Core Implementation Guide	Defines the specific constraints for using FHIR to represent USCDI data, acting as a "recipe" for ensuring API compliance [20].
Central Cancer Registry Reporting IG	A specialized implementation guide that specifies how to use mCODE and MedMorph for automated reporting to cancer registries [20].
OMOP Common Data Model (CDM)	A standardized data model that allows for the transformation and systematic analysis of disparate observational health databases [43].

Navigating Regulatory and Onboarding Processes for Electronic Reporting

Cancer surveillance is a critical public health function, relying on the complete and timely reporting of cancer cases to central registries. The shift from manual to electronic reporting is fundamental to improving the interoperability of these systems, enabling seamless data exchange between healthcare providers and public health agencies. This transition enhances data completeness, timeliness, and quality, which are vital for researchers and drug development professionals who depend on robust, real-world data [27] [48]. This guide provides technical support for navigating the associated regulatory and onboarding processes.

Technical Support: Troubleshooting Guides and FAQs

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What are the primary technical standards required for electronic cancer reporting? The foundational standards are HL7 (Health Level Seven) and implementation guides developed by standards organizations in collaboration with the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program [27] [49].

• HL7 Version 2.5.1: Widely used for electronic pathology (ePath) reporting, this standard defines the structure for the unsolicited observation report (ORU) message used to transmit lab data [27].
• HL7 Clinical Document Architecture (CDA): This is a core document standard for ambulatory healthcare providers to report to central cancer registries, often aligned with the "Promoting Interoperability" program objectives [50] [49].
• FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources): An emerging modern standard that uses APIs for data exchange. The NPCR has published an HL7 FHIR Cancer Pathology Data Sharing Implementation Guide to prepare for its adoption [27] [51].

Q2: Our laboratory serves multiple states. What is the most efficient way to report? For multi-state reporters, the CDC recommends using the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) Informatics Messaging Services (AIMS) platform. This secure, cloud-based platform acts as a single point for reporting, reducing burden by eliminating the need to establish separate connections with each state registry [27] [51]. You should contact the NPCR directly to begin this process [27].

Q3: What are the common reasons for a failure in message validation? Message validation failures typically occur due to:

• Structural Non-Conformance: The HL7 or CDA message does not adhere to the precise specifications in the implementation guide (e.g., missing required segments or data fields) [50].
• Terminology Issues: Using local codes instead of required standard terminologies (e.g., SNOMED CT, LOINC) for data elements.
• Filtering Logic Errors: The laboratory's system fails to correctly filter cancer cases based on patient address (state of residence) or the location of the ordering provider, leading to reports being sent to the wrong registry [27].
• Secure Transport Misconfiguration: Issues with the connection to the designated secure transport method, such as PHINMS or a state's Health Information Exchange (HIE) [50].

Q4: What specific data elements are required for a report to be considered complete? The NAACCR Volume V Standard for Pathology Laboratory Electronic Reporting provides detailed guidance. Essential data elements include [27]:

• Patient identifiers and demographics.
• Specimen information (e.g., specimen source, date of collection).
• Tumor characteristics (e.g., primary site, histology, behavior, grade). These are often embedded in narrative text and are targets for automated extraction using Natural Language Processing (NLP) [51].
• An ICD-10-CM code for the cancer diagnosis. Registries use a defined casefinding list, which includes core codes reportable to all states and expanded codes for specific states [27].

Troubleshooting Common Implementation Barriers

The following table summarizes frequent challenges and potential solutions identified from registry operations [48].

Table 1: Common Electronic Reporting Challenges and Solutions

Challenge Category	Specific Challenge	Potential Solutions
Technical Capacity	Lack of in-house IT/technical expertise and support [48].	Seek technical assistance from NPCR or central registry partners. Leverage CDC's free software (eMaRC Plus) and secure data transport (PHINMS) [27].
Data Quality & Interoperability	Inconsistent data structure and lack of standardization across sources [48] [7].	Adopt synoptic reporting using CAP electronic Cancer Checklists (eCC) to ensure data is discrete and structured from the source [27].
Organizational & Resource	Insufficient staffing and funding to manage the implementation and sustain operations [48].	Leverage federal and state initiatives like the Data Modernization Initiative (DMI). Advocate for resources by highlighting long-term efficiency gains and cost savings from automation [27] [51].
Regulatory & Vendor	EHR vendor lock-in and use of proprietary systems that limit data exchange [7].	Specify adherence to required standards (HL7, FHIR) in vendor contracts. Participate in initiatives like Digital Bridge that promote standard transport methods [51].

Quantitative Data on Electronic Reporting Adoption

Research with central cancer registries has identified key factors that influence the adoption of electronic reporting. The data below, derived from a study of NPCR registries, highlights the differences between higher and lower adopters [48].

Table 2: Factors Affecting Electronic Reporting Adoption in Central Cancer Registries

Factor	Higher Adopters	Lower Adopters
Organizational & Staffing	Greater organizational capacity; sufficient IT and technical staff (e.g., Certified Tumor Registrars) [48].	Lack of capacity at registry and data source levels; insufficient staffing and technical support [48].
Funding & Partnerships	Access to diverse funding sources (e.g., state, SEER); strong partnerships; management support [48].	Reliance on single funding source; limited collaborative partnerships.
Contextual Enablers	Supportive legislation (e.g., mandating electronic reporting); access to an interstate data exchange [27] [48].	Challenging state political environment; lack of automation and interoperability of software [48].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol 1: Implementing Electronic Pathology (ePath) Reporting

This methodology outlines the steps for a pathology laboratory to establish direct electronic reporting to a central cancer registry [27].

• Expression of Interest: The pathology laboratory contacts the central cancer registry (for single-state reporting) or the NPCR (for multi-state reporting) [27].
• Orientation & Requirements Gathering: The registry assesses laboratory readiness, including the Laboratory Information System (LIS), estimated annual cancer case volume, and ability to use required standards like HL7 v2.5.1 and filter cases by patient state of residence [27].
• Message Development & Secure Transport Setup:
  • The laboratory develops HL7 messages conforming to the NAACCR Volume V standard.
  • Guidance is provided on establishing a secure data transport channel, typically via the AIMS platform, PHINMS, or a state HIE [27] [50].
• Testing & Validation: The laboratory sends test data to the registry. The registry validates the HL7 message structure, content, and filtering logic. The previous reporting mechanism (e.g., paper) is used to validate content until the electronic process is certified [27].
• Production Go-Live: After successful testing and validation, the laboratory begins ongoing electronic reporting to the cancer registry [27].

Protocol 2: Onboarding Eligible Professionals for Public Health Reporting

This protocol describes the process for eligible providers (e.g., physicians) to onboard for electronic case reporting as part of public health programs [50].

• Registration: The eligible professional completes a Registration of Intent with the public health agency.
• Message Pretesting (Recommended): The provider uses tools like the NIST Cancer Registry Reporting Validation Tool to pretest CDA messages generated by their Certified Electronic Health Record Technology (CEHRT) for structural validity.
• Connectivity and Testing:
  • The provider establishes a connection using the approved transport method (e.g., State HIE for Medicaid providers).
  • Error-free test messages generated from the live EHR are submitted to public health.
• Validation: The public health agency reviews the submitted data for errors and missing values. The provider must correct all issues before proceeding.
• Production: Upon successful validation, the provider is moved to production status and must participate in periodic quality assurance checks [50].

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the end-to-end workflow for electronic pathology reporting, integrating the roles of laboratories, interoperability platforms, and registries.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

For researchers working on or with cancer surveillance systems, the following "reagents" or core components are essential for building and improving interoperable electronic reporting.

Table 3: Essential Components for Interoperable Cancer Surveillance Research

Research Component	Function & Explanation
HL7 FHIR Implementation Guides	Provide the "recipe" for structuring data. The HL7 FHIR Cancer Pathology Data Sharing IG and the mCODE (Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements) standard define a core set of structured data elements for interoperability [27] [2].
Natural Language Processing (NLP) APIs	Act as a "catalyst" to convert unstructured text into structured data. Tools like the NCI-DOE NLP API automate the extraction of key elements (e.g., histology, stage) from pathology reports, which is critical for efficiency [51].
AIMS/PHINMS Secure Transport	The "conduit" for data movement. These secure systems provide the infrastructure for reliable and protected data exchange between reporters and registries, a foundational requirement for interoperability [27].
NAACCR Volume V Standard	The "protocol" for data content. This standard specifies the exact data items, formats, and codes required for electronic pathology reporting, ensuring consistency and quality across different reporting sources [27].
CAP Electronic Cancer Checklists (eCC)	A "standardized assay" for data capture. Using eCC promotes synoptic, structured data entry at the source, which is more easily computed and shared than narrative text, directly enhancing interoperability [27].

Optimizing Clinical Workflows to Reduce Administrative Burden

Troubleshooting Common Interoperability & EHR Challenges

This section addresses frequent technical and workflow issues encountered by cancer researchers and clinicians, hindering efficient data access and collaboration.

FAQ 1: A significant portion of my team's clinical time is spent searching for patient information across multiple systems. What is the root cause and how can we fix it?

• Problem Identification: The core issue is likely data fragmentation and lack of interoperability between electronic health record (EHR) systems and research databases. In a 2025 survey of gynecological oncology professionals, 92% reported routinely accessing multiple EHR systems, with 29% using five or more. A striking 17% spent over half of their clinical time merely searching for patient information [52].
• Solution & Experimental Protocol: Implement a co-designed, integrated informatics platform.
  • Methodology: A 2025 study successfully developed a platform for ovarian cancer care using a human-centered design approach [52].
  • Steps:
    • Form a Multi-disciplinary Team: Include clinicians, data engineers, informatics experts, and clinical researchers [52].
    • Map Data Sources: Catalog all relevant clinical systems (EHRs, lab info systems, genomics databases) and identify critical data points (e.g., genetic results, pathology reports) that are currently difficult to locate [52].
    • Apply NLP and Data Pipelines: Use Natural Language Processing (NLP) to extract structured information (e.g., genomic data, surgical outcomes) from unstructured clinical notes and reports. Build and validate data pipelines that pull from various source systems [52].
    • Develop a Unified Interface: Create a single, visual dashboard that consolidates disparate patient data into a comprehensive summary view for clinical decision-making and audit [52].
• Quantitative Data: Challenges in Gynecological Oncology (2025 Survey) [52]

Challenge Category	Specific Metric	Percentage/Frequency
System Fragmentation	Routinely access multiple EHR systems	92% (84/91 professionals)
System Fragmentation	Use 5 or more systems	29% (26/91 professionals)
Time Burden	Spend >50% of clinical time searching for information	17% (16/92 professionals)
Data Locatability	Difficulty locating critical genetic results	67% (57/85 professionals)
User Satisfaction	Strongly agree that systems provide well-organized data	11% (10/92 professionals)

FAQ 2: Our clinical trial startup is delayed by slow site selection and budget negotiations. How can technology optimize this?

• Problem Identification: Delays are often caused by manual, inefficient processes for selecting high-performing trial sites and negotiating contracts. Budget and contract negotiations can cause 40% of trial startup delays [53].
• Solution & Experimental Protocol: Leverage AI-driven analytics for operational optimization.
  • Methodology: Use predictive AI models to analyze historical trial- and site-level performance metrics [54] [53].
  • Steps:
    • Data Aggregation: Compile data from previous trials, including enrollment rates, patient demographics, protocol compliance, and financial performance by site [54].
    • AI Model Training: Train machine learning models on this data to identify characteristics of top-enrolling sites, which typically outperform median sites by two to four times [54].
    • Predictive Site Selection: Use the model to score and rank potential new sites based on their predicted enrollment and operational efficiency [53].
    • AI-Powered Budgeting: Implement AI-powered financial modeling to benchmark site budgets in real-time, predict cost variability, and dynamically adjust budgets. This can reduce negotiation cycles, which currently average around 230 days [53].

FAQ 3: How can we reduce the administrative burden of clinical documentation for physicians involved in our research?

• Problem Identification: Physicians spend excessive time on manual documentation and clerical tasks within EHRs, which is a primary driver of burnout. One study found residents spent up to nine hours of a 20-hour shift on clerical EHR tasks instead of patient care [55].
• Solution & Experimental Protocol: Implement workflow redesign and AI-powered transcription.
  • Methodology I - Workflow Redesign: A 2025 hospital initiative successfully reduced burden by re-engineering a specific discharge form process [55].
  • Steps:
    • Identify a High-Friction Task: Use surveys (e.g., the Maslach Burnout Inventory) and clinician feedback to pinpoint a specific, modifiable administrative burden [55].
    • Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Form a team including physicians, social workers, case management, and IT to redesign the workflow [55].
    • Task-Shifting: Redistribute responsibilities according to scope of practice (e.g., social workers complete relevant sections of a form). Automate where possible (e.g., auto-populate medication lists from the EMR) [55].
  • Methodology II - AI & Automation: Use AI-powered tools to automate documentation [56].
  • Steps:
    • Implement AI-Powered Tools: Deploy Natural Language Processing (NLP) systems that listen to patient-provider conversations and automatically generate accurate clinical notes [56].
    • Integrate with EHR: Use EHR automation tools with smart templates and auto-populated fields to minimize repetitive data entry [56].
    • Measure Impact: Track key metrics like time spent on documentation, provider burnout scores, and claim denial rates [56].

Visualizing the Optimized Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the logical flow of an optimized, interoperable system that addresses the challenges above, moving from fragmented data to an integrated clinical and research environment.

Research Reagent Solutions: Essential Tools & Technologies

This table details key technological "reagents" required to build the optimized workflows described.

Item Name	Type	Function in the "Experiment"
FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources)	Data Standard	A modern data exchange standard that enables consistent, shareable patient records across different healthcare platforms, forming the foundation for interoperability [57].
TEFCA (Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement)	Governance Framework	Establishes a "network of networks" to ensure secure, nationwide health data exchange, allowing systems to access broader, cross-organizational patient data [57].
Natural Language Processing (NLP)	AI Technology	Extracts structured, coded data (e.g., biomarker status, surgical outcomes) from unstructured clinical notes and reports, making critical information computable and accessible [56] [52].
AI-Powered Analytics	Software Tool	Analyzes historical trial data to optimize site selection, predict enrollment rates, and identify patients eligible for clinical trials, dramatically compressing trial timelines [54] [53].
Integrated Informatics Platform	Software Solution	A co-designed dashboard that consolidates disparate data from multiple source systems (EHRs, genomics, etc.) into a single, unified patient summary view to support clinical decision-making and audit [52].
Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)	Integration Tool	Enable seamless data exchange and integration between disparate platforms (EHRs, HIEs, research networks), creating a cohesive data ecosystem [57].

Measuring Success: Validation, Pilots, and Real-World Impact

Evaluating Data Completeness and Interoperability in Federated Systems

Technical Support Center: FAQs & Troubleshooting Guides

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What are the most critical data completeness metrics to monitor in a federated cancer surveillance system?

Regularly tracking specific, quantifiable metrics is essential for maintaining data quality. The following table summarizes the key metrics and their implications for research.

Metric	Description	Impact on Research
Demographic Data Completeness	Presence of essential fields like race, gender, and date of birth. [58]	Critical for health equity studies; high rates of unknown race (e.g., 10.6% in one reported dataset) can invalidate disparities research. [58]
Clinical Data Presence	Availability of key oncology data points such as tumor stage, histology, and treatment plans.	Incomplete data hinders the ability to track patient outcomes and treatment effectiveness across the network.
Temporal Data Consistency	Consistency of data submissions across reporting periods (e.g., quarterly). [59]	Gaps in longitudinal data can disrupt trend analysis for cancer incidence and survival rates. [59]

Q2: Our federated network is experiencing a data synchronization failure. What are the initial troubleshooting steps?

Synchronization issues can arise from various points in the data pipeline. Follow this systematic approach [60]:

• Step 1: Verify Network Connectivity & Configuration: Ensure the partner site can ping the central coordinating center and that all necessary domains (e.g., *.workspaceoneaccess.com) are allowlisted on the site's firewall. [60]
• Step 2: Check Credentials and Permissions: Confirm that the credentials (Bind DN/passwords) for connecting to local data sources have not changed or expired. [60]
• Step 3: Review Connector Logs: Examine the logs on the local connector software for errors. Typical log file paths are INSTALL_DIR\...\User Auth Service\logs\eas-service.log and ...\Directory Sync Service\logs\eds-service.log. [60]

Q3: Which interoperability standards should we implement to improve data exchange for cancer surveillance?

Leveraging established standards is a foundational step. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) maintains the Interoperability Standards Advisory (ISA) as a central resource for such standards [58].

Standard	Function	Applicability in Cancer Surveillance
FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources)	A standard for exchanging healthcare information electronically. [61]	Enables structured data exchange for patient summaries, diagnostic reports, and treatment plans between oncology centers and registries.
SNOMED CT (Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine -- Clinical Terms)	A comprehensive clinical terminology system. [61]	Provides standardized codes for representing cancer diagnoses, morphology, and procedures, ensuring semantic consistency.
HL7 CDA (Clinical Document Architecture)	A standard for specifying the structure and semantics of clinical documents.	Often used for transmitting cancer pathology reports and discharge summaries in a human-readable and machine-processable format.

Q4: A partner site's data is complete internally but shows gaps when aggregated at the network level. What could be the cause?

This is a common issue in federated architectures. The problem likely lies in the Extraction, Transformation, and Loading (ETL) process at the partner site. The local ETL logic designed to extract data from the source Electronic Health Record (EHR) and map it to the common data model may be omitting certain fields or failing to handle null values correctly. A systems-based approach, using tools like DQe-c to generate site-level completeness reports, can help identify the specific point of data loss. [59]

Troubleshooting Guides

Guide 1: Resolving "Login Validation Failure" in Federated Identity Management

• Problem: Users at a partner site cannot log into the federated data portal and receive a 4xx error during validation. [60]
• Solution:
  • Check SAML Configuration: Use a browser extension (like a SAML-tracer) to inspect the SAML response from the site's identity provider. Verify that the NameID attribute is present and its format matches exactly what is requested in the SAML request. [60]
  • Verify User Synchronization: Confirm that the user who is attempting to log in has been successfully synchronized from the partner site's directory to the central portal. [60]

Guide 2: Addressing Low Data Completeness Scores for a Partner Site

• Problem: A Vue-generated network dashboard shows a partner site has declining completeness in key demographic fields. [59]
• Solution:
  • Run a Local DQe-c Assessment: The partner site should run the DQe-c tool on its latest data repository to generate a detailed, internal completeness report. [59]
  • Analyze the ETL Pipeline: Compare the DQe-c report against the source EHR data to pinpoint which specific transformation or loading rule is causing the data loss. The issue often resides in custom ETL scripts.
  • Implement and Re-test: Correct the ETL logic and re-run DQe-c to validate the improvement before the next quarterly data refresh is sent to the network. [59]

Experimental Protocols for Data Quality Assessment

Protocol 1: Implementing a Federated Data Completeness Tracking System

This protocol is based on the system implemented by the ARCH Clinical Data Research Network. [59]

• Objective: To design a sociotechnical system that profiles data completeness across distributed EHR data repositories and empowers sites to take corrective action.
• Materials:
  • DQe-c: An open-source R-based tool for evaluating completeness in EHR data repositories. [59]
  • Vue: An open-source R-based tool that aggregates DQe-c outputs to create network-level dashboards and site-specific feedback reports. [59]
  • Participating Partner Sites: In the ARCH pilot, 6 sites were involved. [59]
• Methodology: a. First Feedback Loop (Site-Level): i. Each partner site installs and runs DQe-c in its local environment after each data refresh (e.g., quarterly). ii. DQe-c generates a set of completeness assessment reports. iii. The site uses these reports to initiate local data quality improvements. iv. The site shares key output files (CSV) with the network's central Data Quality Team (DQT). [59] b. Second Feedback Loop (Network-Level): i. The central DQT aggregates the CSV files from all partner sites. ii. The DQT uses Vue to process these files and generate two outputs: - An interactive network-level dashboard showing the current state and longitudinal trends of data completeness. - A set of individualized site feedback reports that present a site's completeness in the context of the entire network. [59] iii. These reports are fed back to the partner sites, enabling them to see their progress relative to peers and take further action.

The workflow for this protocol is illustrated below.

Protocol 2: Adhering to Public Health Reporting Requirements (e.g., AUR Surveillance)

This protocol outlines the steps for eligible hospitals to meet reporting mandates for programs like the CMS Promoting Interoperability Program, which is analogous to reporting for cancer surveillance. [62]

• Objective: To successfully achieve "Active Engagement" for data submission to a public health agency, fulfilling regulatory requirements.
• Materials: EHR system with electronic medication administration records (eMAR) and an electronic laboratory information system (LIS).
• Methodology: a. Option 1 - Pre-production and Validation: i. Register Intent: Within 60 days of the start of your 180-day reporting period, register your intent to submit data within the designated public health system (e.g., NHSN). [62] ii. Receive Invitation: You will receive an automated email inviting you to begin testing and validation. iii. Submit Test Files: Respond within 30 days by submitting test files for validation. For a combined measure, this may involve multiple file types (e.g., Summary and Event files). [62] iv. Await Validation: Allow up to 8 weeks for the agency to complete the validation of your test files. [62] b. Option 2 - Validated Data Production: i. Submit a continuous 180-day period of "production data" (data generated from patient care) to the public health agency. [62]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details key tools and resources for establishing and maintaining a federated data research network.

Tool / Resource	Function	Application in Federated Systems
DQe-c	An open-source R-based tool for standardized assessment of data completeness in EHR repositories. [59]	Serves as the primary engine for generating site-level data completeness reports within the federated network workflow. [59]
Vue	An open-source R-based tool that aggregates outputs from multiple DQe-c runs. [59]	Creates network-level dashboards and comparative site feedback reports, enabling cross-site analysis and benchmarking. [59]
FHIR Standards	A modern, web-based standard for exchanging healthcare data. [61]	Provides the foundational framework for structuring data exchanged between partners in the network, ensuring syntactic interoperability.
Interoperability Standards Advisory (ISA)	A continuously updated resource listing available interoperability standards and implementation specifications. [58]	Helps researchers and IT staff select the appropriate data standards (e.g., for lab results or procedures) to adopt within their common data model.

Validating Privacy-Preserving Record Linkage (PPRL) Techniques

Troubleshooting Guides and FAQs

Common PPRL Implementation Issues and Solutions

Q: Our PPRL process is producing a high rate of false-positive matches. What could be causing this?

A: High false-positive rates often stem from insufficiently distinctive linkage schemas or inappropriate similarity thresholds. To resolve this:

• Review your token composition: Ensure you're using multiple complementary tokens rather than relying on a single identifier. A robust schema should combine direct identifiers (like hashed SSN) with quasi-identifiers (like encoded date of birth and sex) [63].
• Adjust matching thresholds: Increase the required similarity score for matches, especially for tokens based on less distinctive attributes [64].
• Implement probabilistic matching: Move beyond exact matching to account for data variations while maintaining higher thresholds for match classification [64].

Q: We're encountering significant computational performance issues when linking large datasets. How can we optimize this?

A: Computational bottlenecks are common with large-scale PPRL implementations. Consider these optimizations:

• Implement blocking techniques: Use methods like locality-sensitive hashing or canopy clustering to reduce the number of candidate pairs that require detailed comparison [64].
• Adopt incremental PPRL (iPPRL): For updating existing linked datasets, iPPRL processes only new or modified records rather than re-linking entire datasets, significantly improving efficiency [65].
• Distribute processing: Utilize parallel processing and distributed computing frameworks to handle large datasets [64].

Q: How can we validate that our PPRL implementation maintains privacy guarantees while ensuring linkage accuracy?

A: Validation requires assessing both privacy protection and linkage quality:

• Conduct re-identification risk assessment: Perform statistical evaluation to ensure the risk of re-identification from PPRL tokens meets required standards (e.g., HIPAA's Expert Determination Standard) [66].
• Compare with gold standard linkages: When possible, validate PPRL results against traditional linkages using unencrypted identifiers to measure precision and recall [63].
• Use synthetic data: Test with datasets where match status is known to establish baseline performance metrics before working with real data [65].

PPRL Performance Validation Metrics

Table 1: PPRL Validation Metrics from Empirical Studies

Study Context	Dataset Characteristics	Precision	Recall	Key Findings
NCHS-NDI Linkage [63]	Hospital care survey to death records, 4.1M records	93.8%-98.9%	97.8%-98.7%	Performance varies by token selection; higher match rates for older adults
Colorado Congenital Heart Registry [65]	Multi-institutional patient registry, ~5,000 patients	99%	94%	Incremental PPRL performed equally to bulk linkage methods
Pediatric Oncology Research [67]	Distributed childhood cancer data	Varies by implementation	Varies by implementation	Optimal threshold of accordance must be chosen depending on use case

Experimental Validation Protocols

Protocol 1: Baseline PPRL Performance Assessment

This methodology validates PPRL accuracy against a gold standard linkage [63]:

• Dataset Preparation: Identify two datasets with known relationship (e.g., survey data and administrative records) containing personal identifiers for both traditional and PPRL linkage
• Gold Standard Establishment: Perform traditional linkage using unencrypted identifiers with deterministic and probabilistic techniques
• PPRL Implementation: Apply privacy-preserving techniques including hashing and tokenization to the same datasets
• Comparison Analysis: Calculate precision, recall, and F-score by comparing PPRL results to gold standard
• Impact Assessment: Evaluate how PPRL affects subsequent analyses (e.g., mortality rates, treatment outcomes)

Protocol 2: Incremental PPRL Validation

This protocol validates methods for linking new or updated records to existing linked datasets [65]:

• Reference Set Creation: Manually review and link a subset of records to create a validated reference dataset
• Initial Bulk Linkage: Perform complete PPRL on baseline data to establish initial linked repository
• Incremental Processing: Apply iPPRL to link only new or modified records to the existing repository
• Performance Comparison: Measure precision, recall, and computational efficiency compared to re-linking entire datasets
• Scalability Testing: Assess performance with datasets of varying sizes and complexity

PPRL Technical Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: PPRL Research Reagents

Table 2: Essential Tools and Methods for PPRL Implementation

Tool/Category	Specific Examples	Function & Application
Open-Source PPRL Tools	PPRL (R-based), clkhash/Anonlink (Python-based), PRIMAT (Java-based) [64]	Configurable tools for implementing PPRL workflows; suitable for research implementations and customization
Commercial PPRL Platforms	Datavant, Healthverity IPGE Platform, Senzing entity resolution [66] [64]	Enterprise-grade solutions with governance frameworks; appropriate for production systems and regulatory compliance
Specialized PPRL Services	SPIDER, European Patient Identity (EUPID) Services [67]	Domain-specific services supporting perfect matches (SPIDER) or fuzzy matching with phonetic hashing (EUPID)
Validation Frameworks	Gold standard comparison, Synthetic data testing, Incremental PPRL (iPPRL) [63] [65]	Methodologies for assessing linkage quality, privacy preservation, and computational efficiency
Encoding Techniques	Cryptographic hashing, Bloom filters, Locality-sensitive hashing [64]	Methods for transforming identifiable data into privacy-preserving representations while maintaining linkage capability

Advanced Troubleshooting: Domain-Specific Challenges

Q: In cancer surveillance research, how do we handle linkage across fragmented healthcare systems where patients receive care at multiple facilities?

A: Pediatric oncology research demonstrates several effective approaches [67]:

• Multi-dimensional linkage: Combine demographic, clinical, and temporal data to create more robust linkage schemas that can overcome institutional boundaries
• Cross-institutional governance: Establish common data models and linkage protocols across participating institutions, as demonstrated in the European Joint Programme on Rare Diseases
• Longitudinal validation: Implement ongoing quality checks that monitor linkage performance over time, particularly important for tracking cancer outcomes and survivorship

Q: What specific considerations are needed when linking clinical trial data with real-world data for cancer research?

A: Combining RCT and RWD requires special attention to [68]:

• Temporal alignment: Ensure proper sequencing of trial participation and real-world healthcare encounters
• Data quality reconciliation: Develop methods to address discordance between protocol-driven trial data and administrative real-world data
• Consent integration: Implement mechanisms to honor trial consent provisions while enabling secondary data use
• Comprehensive health histories: Create longitudinal patient records that span both controlled trial settings and routine clinical practice

Comparative Analysis of Cancer Surveillance Systems and Their Methodologies

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Cancer Surveillance Systems

Q1: What are the most critical data gaps in current cancer surveillance systems that hinder interoperability? A1: Significant gaps exist in data standardization, interoperability, and adaptability across healthcare settings. Key issues include lack of standardization in data collection, classification, and coding practices (e.g., variations in ICD-O implementation), inconsistent adoption of standard populations for calculating Age-Standardized Rates (ASRs), and failure to integrate disability-adjusted measures like Years Lived with Disability (YLD) and Years of Life Lost (YLL). These variations complicate cross-regional comparisons and epidemiological analyses [69] [14].

Q2: Which staging classification systems are available for cancer registries, and how do they differ? A2: The primary staging systems include:

• TNM System: Global standard with highest clinical/prognostic value but complexity leads to poor completeness in population-based registries, especially in low-resource settings [70] [71].
• Condensed TNM (CTNM): Simplified alternative using general criteria for all tumour types, but guidelines have not been revised since 2002 [70].
• Essential TNM (ETNM): Designed for use when complete TNM data is unavailable, though it requires further field-testing [70].
• Registry-derived Stage: Developed to address lack of standardized stage data in registries like Australia's [70].
• SEER Summary Stage: Extent-of-disease system used in North American registries [70].

Q3: What technological solutions can improve data interoperability in cancer surveillance? A3: Implementing standardized terminologies like SNOMED CT and data exchange protocols like FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources) creates computable, interoperable pathology reports. Electronic aids such as staging applications, natural language processing, and AI-driven tools can automate data extraction, minimize errors, and infer missing components, significantly enhancing interoperability [72].

Q4: What are the key indicators a comprehensive cancer surveillance framework should capture? A4: An ideal framework integrates incidence, prevalence, mortality, survival rates, YLD, and YLL, calculated using multiple standard populations for age-standardized rates. It should incorporate demographic filters (age, sex, geographic location) and standardized cancer type classification using ICD-O standards [69] [14].

Q5: What are the specific challenges for cancer staging in low and middle-income countries (LMICs)? A5: LMICs face fragmented healthcare systems, lack of integrated health information, reliance on disparate data sources, and limited access to advanced diagnostic tools. Clinicians often fail to document TNM components explicitly, forcing registrars to interpret ambiguous narratives, which leads to errors and misclassification [70].

Troubleshooting Guides

Issue: Low Completeness of Traditional TNM Staging Data

Problem: Population-based registries, particularly in resource-limited settings, struggle with low completeness rates for traditional TNM staging due to its complexity and data requirements [70].

Solution: Implement a hybrid approach:

• Evaluate Resource Capacity: Assess available data sources, IT infrastructure, and registrar expertise.
• Select Context-Appropriate System:
  • For registries with detailed clinical access: Aim for traditional TNM.
  • For registries with limited clinical data: Use simplified systems (Essential TNM, Condensed TNM).
• Utilize Electronic Aids: Implement staging applications or NLP tools to automate data extraction from clinical texts [70].
• Establish Clear Protocols: Develop standardized reporting protocols for clinicians to ensure consistent data documentation.

Issue: Achieving Semantic and Syntactic Interoperability

Problem: Pathology reports contain critical cancer data but are often not computable or readily exchangeable between systems, hindering secondary use and analysis [72].

Solution: Adopt a standards-based approach using the following workflow to transform narrative reports into structured, computable data:

• Apply Standardized Datasets: Use internationally recognized synoptic reporting protocols (e.g., International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting - ICCR) [72].
• Bind to Standard Terminology: Map all data elements to SNOMED CT concepts to ensure semantic interoperability and computability [72].
• Implement FHIR Standards: Use FHIR Structured Data Capture (SDC) to render the dataset into a standardized, exchangeable format (e.g., JSON) [72].

Issue: Visualizing Complex Cancer Surveillance Data Effectively

Problem: Ineffective data visualization leads to difficulty identifying patterns, trends, and opportunities for quality improvement in cancer surveillance data [73].

Solution: Apply data visualization best practices:

• Simplify and Reduce Cognitive Load:
  • Use horizontal bar charts for easier category reading.
  • Integrate goals directly into graphs (e.g., a reference line) instead of separate elements.
  • Order data meaningfully (e.g., high to low performance) [73].
• Provide Sufficient Context:
  • Write out full questions or criteria instead of abbreviations.
  • Use clear titles, axis labels, and legends.
  • Change technical terms like "aggregate" to more common ones like "average" [73].
• Leverage Numeracy and Precision:
  • Incorporate precise data tables alongside graphs for specific value comparisons.
  • Add the actual "number of audits" or cases to data tables [73].
• Use Color Conservatively: Apply color sparingly and intentionally to highlight key information without causing distraction [73].

Comparative Analysis Tables

Table 1: Comparison of Cancer Stage Classification Systems

Staging System	Key Principles	Data Requirements	Primary Utility	Key Challenges
TNM (UICC/AJCC)	Anatomic extent (Tumor, Node, Metastasis) [70]	Detailed clinical, pathological, and radiological data [70]	Gold standard for clinical prognosis and treatment [70]	High complexity leads to poor completeness in population-based registries [70]
Condensed TNM (CTNM)	Simplified TNM with general criteria for all tumours [70]	Clinical/pathological TNM or descriptive info [70]	Population-based registries seeking TNM-like data [70]	Guidelines not updated since 2002; limited adoption [70]
Essential TNM (ETNM)	Core TNM elements for settings with incomplete data [70]	Minimal data, comparable to TNM categories [70]	Resource-limited settings and mortality-only registries [70]	Requires more field-testing and dissemination [70]
Registry-derived Stage	Derived from available registry data using algorithms [70]	Registry data of varying completeness [70]	Registries lacking consistent TNM data [70]	May have limited clinical utility compared to TNM [70]
SEER Summary Stage	Extent of disease (local, regional, distant) [70]	Information on cancer spread from multiple sources [70]	Epidemiology and health services research [70]	Not as prognostically precise as TNM for clinical care [70]

Table 2: Essential Data Elements for a Comprehensive Cancer Surveillance Framework

Category	Specific Data Elements	Purpose & Importance
Epidemiological Indicators	Incidence, Prevalence, Mortality, Survival Rates, Years Lived with Disability (YLD), Years of Life Lost (YLL) [69] [14]	Provides a holistic assessment of the cancer burden, capturing both fatal and non-fatal outcomes [69] [14].
Standardization Metrics	Age-Standardized Rates (using SEGI, WHO, other standard populations), ICD-O-3 classification for cancer type [69] [14]	Enables valid cross-regional and temporal comparisons by accounting for population age structure and standardizing disease classification [69].
Demographic & Geographic Filters	Age, Sex, Geographic Location (e.g., country, region, census tract) [69] [14]	Enables stratified analyses to identify health disparities, target interventions, and tailor cancer control programs to specific populations [69] [14].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Resource	Function / Application	Key Features / Notes
SNOMED CT	Comprehensive clinical terminology providing semantic meaning to data elements [72].	Ensures data is computable and semantically faithful; recently developed content specific to cancer pathology reporting [72].
HL7 FHIR (SDC)	Data exchange standard providing syntactic interoperability [72].	Uses modern web standards; the Structured Data Capture (SDC) profile is ideal for rendering cancer reporting forms [72].
ICCR Datasets	Internationally agreed-upon protocols for cancer pathology reporting [72].	Define core and non-core data elements; provide the foundational information model for structuring reports [72].
NCI Cancer Research Data Commons (CRDC)	Cloud-based infrastructure providing access to cancer research data and visualization tools [74].	Includes various data commons (Genomic, Imaging, etc.) and tools like UCSC Xena for data exploration [74].
SEER*Stat Software	Statistical analysis tool for analyzing SEER and other cancer data [75].	Includes tutorials, help systems, and technical support for cancer registry data analysis [75].

Best Practices for Cohort Development and Data Preparation on Centralized Platforms

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the primary data standards for ensuring cancer data interoperability on centralized platforms? The Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE) is a core consensus data standard designed specifically to enable the transmission of computable cancer patient data. Organized into six domains—Patient, Laboratory/Vital, Disease, Genomics, Treatment, and Outcome—mCODE comprises 90 data elements across 23 profiles. It is implemented using the Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) standard, which is critical for enabling seamless data exchange between different electronic health records and research systems [2]. Adopting these standards is a foundational step for improving data quality and interoperability in cancer surveillance systems.

Our multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are inefficient due to manual data aggregation. How can a centralized platform help? Digitizing the MDT workflow with a platform that leverages FHIR can drastically improve efficiency. One implementation study demonstrated that integrating a tumor board platform led to a 60% reduction in process steps (from 83 down to 33 steps) and cut the time spent on coordinated activities from 30 minutes to just 5 minutes per case. This is achieved by using FHIR resources and application programming interfaces (APIs) to automatically consolidate patient data from disparate hospital information systems into a single, accessible platform for discussion [76].

What is a critical step in preparing patient-derived tissue samples for research-grade biobanking? Prompt and proper tissue preservation is paramount. After collection, tissue samples must be immediately placed in cold, antibiotic-supplemented medium. Based on experimental protocols, if processing will be delayed beyond 6-10 hours, cryopreservation is recommended. A comparative analysis of preservation methods shows a 20-30% variability in live-cell viability between short-term refrigerated storage and cryopreservation, which can significantly impact the success of downstream applications like organoid generation [18].

How can we balance the collaborative benefits of cohort-based models with the challenges of scaling them? Scaling cohort-based initiatives requires a combination of strategic grouping and technology leverage. Research indicates that keeping group sizes small enhances engagement and individualized support. To scale effectively, you can:

• Increase cohort batch sizes strategically.
• Leverage digital learning platforms and cohort-based learning management systems (LMS).
• Implement dynamic grouping of participants.
• Utilize scalable instructional designs like microlearning [77]. A successful example is Marriott International, which used a dedicated platform to scale its leadership development programs, achieving a five-fold improvement in scale and 8,000 program completions within seven months [78].

Troubleshooting Guides

Issue: Low Data Quality and Inconsistency Across Source Systems

Problem: Data ingested into the centralized platform is unstructured, inconsistent, or does not conform to expected standards, making it unusable for aggregated analysis.

Solution: Implement a rigorous data standardization and validation pipeline.

• Action 1: Enforce a Common Data Standard. Mandate the use of the mCODE FHIR implementation guide for all data contributors. This provides a clear, computable specification for what data should be captured and how it should be formatted [2].

• Action 2: Develop and Share a Data Validation Tool. Create a tool that checks incoming data files for compliance against the mCODE profiles. This tool should flag issues such as:

  • Missing required data elements.
  • Values that fall outside predefined ranges.
  • Use of non-standard terminologies for critical fields (e.g., cancer staging).

• Action 3: Establish a Feedback Loop with Data Contributors. Provide contributors with detailed reports from the validation tool, clearly outlining errors and warnings that need to be addressed in their source systems or extraction processes. This promotes continuous improvement at the data source.

Issue: Failure in Patient-Derived Organoid (PDO) Generation

Problem: Collected colorectal tissue samples fail to generate viable organoids in culture.

Solution: Methodically review the tissue procurement and initial processing protocol. The table below outlines common failure points and corrective actions based on established experimental protocols [18].

Table: Troubleshooting Guide for Colorectal Organoid Generation

Problem	Potential Cause	Corrective Action
Low cell viability	Delay in tissue processing; improper storage medium.	Process tissue immediately (<2h ideal). For delays, use refrigerated storage with antibiotics (≤6-10h) or cryopreservation for longer delays.
Microbial contamination	Inadequate sterile technique or antibiotic wash.	Perform thorough washes with antibiotic solution (e.g., Penicillin-Streptomycin) before processing.
No organoid formation	Incorrect tissue region sampling; harsh digestion.	Ensure strategic sampling of the target anatomical region. Optimize digestion time and enzyme concentration to avoid over-digestion.
Poor organoid growth	Suboptimal growth factor combination; outdated media.	Use a validated culture medium supplemented with essential factors (e.g., EGF, Noggin, R-spondin). Prepare fresh media aliquots frequently.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Generating Patient-Derived Organoids from Colorectal Tissues

This protocol provides a detailed methodology for establishing organoid cultures from normal, pre-cancerous, and cancerous colorectal tissues, which are invaluable for personalized drug screening and disease modeling [18].

1. Tissue Procurement and Initial Processing (Time: ~2 hours)

• Sample Collection: Under sterile conditions and IRB-approved protocols, collect tissue samples during colonoscopy or surgical resection.
• Critical Step - Transportation: Immediately place the tissue in a 15 mL tube containing 5-10 mL of cold Advanced DMEM/F12 medium supplemented with antibiotics (e.g., Penicillin-Streptomycin) to preserve cell viability and prevent contamination.
• Critical Step - Preservation Strategy:
  • If processing within 6-10 hours: Wash tissue with antibiotic solution and store at 4°C in DMEM/F12 with antibiotics.
  • If processing is delayed beyond 10-14 hours: Cryopreservation is superior. Wash tissue and freeze using a freezing medium (e.g., 10% FBS, 10% DMSO in 50% L-WRN conditioned medium). Note the 20-30% variability in cell viability between these methods [18].

2. Tissue Digestion and Crypt Isolation (Time: ~1-2 hours)

• Wash the tissue sample several times in cold PBS with antibiotics.
• Mince the tissue into small fragments (~1-2 mm³) using surgical scalpels.
• Digest the tissue fragments in a solution containing collagenase (or other dissociation enzymes) for 30-60 minutes at 37°C with gentle agitation.
• Neutralize the digestion enzyme with complete medium. Filter the cell suspension through a strainer (e.g., 100μm) to remove undigested fragments.
• Centrifuge the filtrate to pellet the isolated crypts or cells.

3. Organoid Culture Establishment (Time: ~30 minutes)

• Resuspend the crypt/cell pellet in a reduced-growth factor basement membrane extract (e.g., Matrigel).
• Plate the suspension as small droplets in a pre-warmed culture plate and allow the matrix to polymerize.
• Overlay the polymerized droplets with a complete organoid growth medium containing essential niche factors like EGF, Noggin, and R-spondin (L-WRN conditioned medium is a common source).
• Culture at 37°C in a 5% CO₂ incubator, with medium changes every 2-3 days.

4. Quality Control and Characterization

• Regularly monitor organoids under a microscope for the formation of characteristic 3D, cystic, or dense structures.
• For cellular characterization, perform immunofluorescence staining for key markers (e.g., CDX2 for intestinal identity, Ki67 for proliferation, Mucin-2 for goblet cells).

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Colorectal Organoid Research

Research Reagent	Function in the Protocol
Advanced DMEM/F12	The base medium for transporting tissue and preparing all other solutions.
L-WRN Conditioned Medium	A critical source of the key growth factors Wnt3a, R-spondin 3, and Noggin, which are essential for long-term stem cell maintenance and organoid growth.
Basement Membrane Extract (e.g., Matrigel)	A 3D extracellular matrix that provides the physical and biochemical support necessary for organoid formation and polarity.
Collagenase/Dispase	Enzymes used to digest the colorectal tissue and isolate intact crypts or individual cells for culture.
Antibiotic-Antimycotic Solution	Used in transport and wash buffers to prevent microbial contamination of the precious tissue sample and subsequent cultures.
DMSO (Dimethyl Sulfoxide)	A cryoprotectant used in freezing medium for the long-term storage of tissue samples or established organoid lines.

Logical Workflow Visualization

Decision Workflow for Organoid Generation

Data Integration for Cancer Research

Conclusion

Achieving interoperability in cancer surveillance is not merely a technical challenge but a fundamental prerequisite for accelerating research and improving patient outcomes. The convergence of standardized data models like mCODE, advanced AI integration, and validated implementation frameworks provides a clear path forward. For researchers and drug developers, these connected systems will unlock richer, longitudinal datasets essential for understanding disease progression and treatment efficacy. Future efforts must focus on scaling these pilot implementations, fostering wider adoption of standards, and ethically leveraging AI to create a truly learning cancer data ecosystem that seamlessly bridges clinical care, public health, and research.

References

• 1. Quantifying the impact of health IT implementations on clinical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2995654/]
• 2. Improving Cancer Data Interoperability - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7713551/]
• 3. Author Post: What Happens After The Breakup? Bridging The Gaps In Fragmented Healthcare [https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbooksauthors/2025/11/10/what-happens-after-the-breakup-bridging-the-gaps-in-fragmented-healthcare/]
• 4. Why AI won’t transform healthcare without interoperability | The AI Journal [https://aijourn.com/why-ai-wont-transform-healthcare-without-interoperability/]
• 5. How to Drive Healthcare Innovation in a Fragmented System [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-drive-healthcare-innovation-fragmented-system-ajhcs-ovcje]
• 6. Interoperability Challenges in Oncology: A Roadmap for ... [https://revealhealthtech.com/blogs/interoperability-challenges-in-oncology-a-roadmap-for-health-and-it-integration/]
• 7. EHR interoperability challenges and solutions [https://www.ehrinpractice.com/ehr-interoperability-challenges-solutions.html]
• 8. Challenges to Using Big Data in Cancer - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10102837/]
• 9. Overcoming data management challenges in oncology ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959804925004873]
• 10. 10 Key Healthcare Interoperability Challenges You Must ... [https://careset.com/10-key-healthcare-interoperability-challenges-you-must-address/]
• 11. Cancer - Promoting Interoperability [https://doh.wa.gov/public-health-provider-resources/healthcare-professions-and-facilities/data-exchange/cancer-reporting-requirements/cancer-promoting-interoperability]
• 12. Perspectives on Challenges and Opportunities for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10007006/]
• 13. Challenges of Interoperability in Healthcare [https://chartrequest.com/articles/interoperability-healthcare-challenges]
• 14. A systematic review and comparative evaluation to develop ... [https://archpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13690-025-01584-6]
• 15. Understanding and Addressing Challenges With Electronic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12422591/]
• 16. Troubleshooting tutorial - The CGC Knowledge Center [https://docs.cancergenomicscloud.org/docs/troubleshooting-tutorial-1]
• 17. Cancer Surveillance Programs and Data Tracking [https://www.cancer.org/cancer/preparing-for-treatment/cancer-surveillance-programs-and-data-tracking.html]
• 18. A Practical Guide to Developing and Troubleshooting Patient ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12566426/]
• 19. Using informatics to improve cancer surveillance - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7647312/]
• 20. Interoperability Resources [https://www.naaccr.org/interoperability-resources/]
• 21. Home - minimal Common Oncology Data Elements ( mCODE )... [https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/fhir-mCODE-ig/]
• 22. How mCODE is Driving EHR Interoperability for Cancer... | TechTarget [https://www.techtarget.com/searchhealthit/answer/How-mCODE-is-Driving-EHR-Interoperability-for-Cancer-Research]
• 23. Feasibility of structuring electronic health record data to facilitate... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11693928/]
• 24. Introducing mCODEGPT as a zero-shot information ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-025-01116-x]
• 25. DevCan FAQ - Surveillance Research Program [https://surveillance.cancer.gov/devcan/faqs.html]
• 26. Design, development, and evaluation of an advanced cancer ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12487559/]
• 27. Advancing Electronic Reporting | NPCR [https://www.cdc.gov/national-program-cancer-registries/data-modernization/advancing-electronic-reporting.html]
• 28. NCCR Feature: Highlights of the 2025 NAACCR Annual ... [https://narrative.naaccr.org/nccr-feature-highlights-of-the-2025-naaccr-annual-conference/]
• 29. Proactive Evaluation and Routine Monitoring of Cancer Data [https://www.cdc.gov/cancer-environment/php/guidelines/proactive-evaluation.html]
• 30. FAQs and Resources | ACS [https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancer-programs/american-joint-committee-on-cancer/faqs-and-resources/]
• 31. AI Troubleshooting Guide 2025 [https://www.rapidinnovation.io/post/ai-agents-for-technical-troubleshooting]
• 32. Development of a Natural Language Processing (NLP) ... [https://aspe.hhs.gov/development-natural-language-processing-nlp-web-service-public-health-use]
• 33. AI troubleshooting guide - coDiagnostiX - Help Scout [https://codiagnostix.helpscoutdocs.com/article/1105-ai-troubleshooting-guide]
• 34. Data Integrator error management and troubleshooting [https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/power-platform/dataverse/data-integration/data-integrator-error-management]
• 35. State-of-the-Art Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources ... [https://medinform.jmir.org/2024/1/e58445]
• 36. Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9346559/]
• 37. Systematic curation and analysis of ovarian cancer data ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949820125000396]
• 38. Integrating Artificial Intelligence Tools in the Clinical ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/13/17/2813]
• 39. Electronic patient-reported outcome systems and ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/digital-health/articles/10.3389/fdgth.2025.1560533/full]
• 40. Using informatics to improve cancer surveillance - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7647312/]
• 41. Building a Winning Data Quality Strategy [https://www.ibm.com/think/insights/data-quality-strategy]
• 42. Data Quality Strategy: Pillars, Benefits & How to Build [https://atlan.com/data-quality-strategy/]
• 43. Data Standardization Methods for Clean Datasets [https://www.egnyte.com/guides/life-sciences/data-standardization]
• 44. What is Data Quality Management? Guide for Best Practices [https://firsteigen.com/blog/data-quality-management-the-complete-guide/]
• 45. How to Improve Data Quality: 16 Actionable Strategies [2024] [https://lakefs.io/data-quality/improve-data-quality/]
• 46. What Is Data Collection Standardization? [https://fiixsoftware.com/maintenance-metrics/what-is-data-collection-standardization/]
• 47. Data Standardization: How to Do It and Why It Matters [https://builtin.com/data-science/when-and-why-standardize-your-data]
• 48. Factors Affecting the Adoption of Electronic Data Reporting ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8664162/]
• 49. HL7 Standards Product Brief - HL7 CDA ® Release 2 Implementation Guide: Reporting to Public Health Cancer Registries from Ambulatory Healthcare Providers, Release 1, DSTU Release 1.1 – US Realm | HL7 International [https://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/product_brief.cfm?product_id=398]
• 50. Cancer - Promoting Interoperability | Washington State Department ... [https://doh.wa.gov/public-health-healthcare-providers/healthcare-professions-and-facilities/data-exchange-0/cancer-reporting-requirements/cancer-promoting-interoperability]
• 51. Current and Emerging Informatics Initiatives Impactful to Cancer Registries - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10229192/]
• 52. Understanding and Addressing Challenges ... - JMIR Cancer [https://cancer.jmir.org/2025/1/e58657]
• 53. Five Predictions for Clinical Research in 2025 [https://www.muralhealth.com/blog/five-predictions-for-clinical-research-in-2025]
• 54. Three Ways to Help Cut Clinical Trial Timelines in Half [https://theconferenceforum.org/editorial/three-ways-to-help-cut-clinical-trial-timelines-in-half-white-paper-from-mckinsey-co]
• 55. Reducing Physician Burnout Through Workflow Redesign [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12253977/]
• 56. How to Reduce Administrative Burden in Healthcare ... [https://drchrono.com/blog/2025/11/how-to-reduce-administrative-burden-in-healthcare-with-technology/]
• 57. Healthcare Interoperability 2025: In-Depth Insights into ... [https://www.ehealthtechnologies.com/insights/healthcare-interoperability-2025-in-depth-insights-into-fhir-ai-tefca-and-more/]
• 58. FAQs | Interoperability Standards Platform (ISP) [https://www.healthit.gov/isp/faqs]
• 59. A federated EHR network data completeness tracking system [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6586954/]
• 60. Troubleshooting Federation - TechDocs [https://techdocs.broadcom.com/es/es/vmware-cis/other/vmware-cloud-services/GA/setting-up-enterprise-federation-with-vmware-cloud-services-guide/troubleshooting-federation.html]
• 61. Data interoperability for a systems approach to ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763425002465]
• 62. AUR Reporting for the CMS Promoting Interoperability ... [https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/cms/cms-faq-aur.html]
• 63. A methodological assessment of privacy preserving record ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9335262/]
• 64. Privacy-Preserving Record Linkage [https://www.boozallen.com/insights/ai-research/privacy-preserving-record-linkage.html]
• 65. Developing an Incremental Privacy-Preserving Record ... [https://www.pcori.org/research-results/2018/developing-incremental-privacy-preserving-record-linkage-method-improve-data-sharing-and-data-quality]
• 66. What is Privacy-Preserving Record Linkage (PPRL) and ... [https://www.datavant.com/hipaa-privacy/privacy-preserving-record-linkage]
• 67. Use Cases Requiring Privacy-Preserving Record Linkage in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11311357/]
• 68. Combining Real‐World and Clinical Trial Data Through ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12453958/]
• 69. A systematic review and comparative evaluation to develop and... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11983913/]
• 70. A comparative analysis of cancer stage classification ... [https://ecancer.org/en/journal/article/1920-a-comparative-analysis-of-cancer-stage-classification-systems-for-registries]
• 71. A comparative analysis of cancer stage classification ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40606943/]
• 72. JMIR Medical Informatics - Building a Standardized Cancer Synoptic... [https://medinform.jmir.org/2025/1/e76870]
• 73. Best practices for data visualization: creating and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7647241/]
• 74. Visualizing Data - NCI [https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/organization/cbiit/training/learn/visualize]
• 75. SEER*Stat Help [https://seer.cancer.gov/seerstat/help.html]
• 76. Process Re-Engineering and Data Integration Using Fast ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12068834/]
• 77. Cohort Model: Build Cohort Programs & Learning in 2025 [https://www.educate-me.co/blog/cohort-model]
• 78. How to Realize the Immense Potential of Cohort-Based Learning - Brandon Hall Group [https://brandonhall.com/how-to-realize-the-immense-potential-of-cohort-based-learning/]