CDISC SDS Oncology Domains: An Orientation to Aid Review & Feedback Barrie Nelson CDISC SDS Oncology Sub Team Lead 2010-02-01.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Monika Kawohl Principal Statistical Programmer Accovion
Advertisements

Participation Requirements for a Guideline Panel Member.
Experience and process for collaborating with an outsource company to create the define file. Ganesh Sankaran TAKE Solutions.
What’s New with CDISC Wayne R. Kubick CDISC CTO.
Quick tour of CDISC’s ADaM standard
Kendle Implementation of Clinical Data Acquisition Standards Harmonization Dr Elke Sennewald Kendle 9th German CDISC User Group Meeting Berlin, 28 September.
Root Cause Analysis Procedure (IMSP525) Training
University of Sunderland CSEM04 ROSCO Unit 13 Unit 13: Risk Methods CSEM04: Risk and Opportunities of Systems Change in Organisations Dr Lynne Humphries.
Metadata Management – Our Journey Thus Far
Study Data Standardization Plan Kick0ff Meeting 23 July 2014.
#PhUSE Standard Scripts Project Proposal for Qualification of Standard Scripts.
SDTM Validation Rules Sub-team Kickoff Meeting January 24 th, 2014.
SDTM Validation Rules Sub-team CDISC INTRAchange Feb 26 th, 2014.
Accenture Accelerated R&D Standards Metadata Management – version control and its governance Kevin Lee CDISC NJ Meeting at 01/28/2015 We help our Clients.
23 August 2015Michael Knoessl1 PhUSE 2008 Manchester / Michael Knoessl Implementing CDISC at Boehringer Ingelheim.
© 2011 Octagon Research Solutions, Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this document are confidential and proprietary to Octagon Research Solutions,
New Advanced Higher Subject Implementation Events
Antje Rossmanith, Roche 14th German CDISC User Group, 25-Sep-2012
Medical Audit.
1CDISC 2002 RCRIM – Standard Domains Agenda NCI Presentation Standard Domains Working Group Goals Introduction to FDA Information Model (FIM) Discussion:
Overview and feed-back from CDISC European Interchange 2008 (From April 21 st to 25 th, COPENHAGEN) Groupe des Utilisateurs Francophones de CDISC Bagneux.
Northcentral University The Graduate School February 2014
Confidential - Property of Navitas Accelerate define.xml using defineReady - Saravanan June 17, 2015.
Update on SDTMIG v and SDTM v. 1.2 Bay Area User Group Meeting May 2008 Fred Wood Octagon Research Solutions.
Second Annual Japan CDISC Group (JCG) Meeting 28 January 2004 Julie Evans Director, Technical Services.
NATA Athletic Training Educational Competencies 4th Edition 2006.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Statistical Division Part B of CMF: Metadata, Standards Concepts and Models Jana Meliskova UNECE Work Session.
RCRIM Projects: Protocol Representation and CDISC Message(s) January 2007.
1 Lifecycle Management Work Group A briefing on Work Group progress by Wendy Blake-Coleman US EPA.
Chapter 14: Using the Scalable Decision Process on Large Projects The process outlined is meant to be scaleable. Individual steps can be removed, changed,
WG4: Standards Implementation Issues with CDISC Data Models Data Guide Subteam Summary of Review of Proposed Templates and Next Steps July 23, 2012.
WG4: Data Guide/Data Description Work Group Meeting August 29, 2012.
1. © CDISC 2014 SDS ELT Rules Team Update Stetson Line 08 Dec
CDISC©2009 February CDISC INTRAchange Carey Smoak Device Team Leader Li Zheng Submission Data Standards Team Member Thurday, April 2, 2009.
Consent for Research Study A study for patients newly diagnosed with advanced glioblastoma (brain cancer): Learning whether a PET scan with F-fluoromisonidazole.
Authorship in Multicenter studies: GEMINI as an example.
1 EMS Fundamentals An Introduction to the EMS Process Roadmap AASHTO EMS Workshop.
Research Study Data Standards Standards for research study data for submission to regulatory authorities Standard development divided into three parts:
Implementation of Oncology specific SDTM domains
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Audit Program - The Audit Process.
Internal Controls and Accounting Systems (ISYS)
SDTM - Tips and Tricks Oncology Domains
Revised AQTF Standards for Registered Training Organisations Strengthening our commitment to quality - COAG February August 2006.
CDISC – 17/12/2012 Carine Javierre Nathalie SABIN.
Emerging Technologies Semantic Web and Data Integration This meeting will start at 5 min past the hour As a reminder, please place your phone on mute unless.
The FDES revision process: progress so far, state of the art, the way forward United Nations Statistics Division.
Contracting Process Overview Agenda Item #12 July 2007.
ESO and the CMR Life Cycle Process Winter ESIP, Jan 2015 ESDIS Standards Office (ESO) Yonsook Enloe Allan Doyle Helen Conover.
1. © CDISC 2014 Stetson Line, Team Lead CDISC Intrachange SDTM Rules Sub-team Update.
How Good is Your SDTM Data? Perspectives from JumpStart Mary Doi, M.D., M.S. Office of Computational Science Office of Translational Sciences Center for.
Submission Standards: The Big Picture Gary G. Walker Associate Director, Programming Standards, Global Data Solutions, Global Data Management.
NCI CBIIT LIMS ISIG Meeting– July 2007 NCI CBIIT LIMS Consortium Interface SIG Mission: focus on an overall goal of providing a library of interfaces/adapters.
An agency of the European Union Guidance on the anonymisation of clinical reports for the purpose of publication in accordance with policy 0070 Industry.
Sample Fit-Gap Kick-off
Aparna Kulkarni, Data Scientist
Experience and process for collaborating with an outsource company to create the define file. Ganesh Sankaran TAKE Solutions.
Accelerate define.xml using defineReady - Saravanan June 17, 2015.
Secondary Uses Primary Use EHR and other Auhortities Clinical Trial
Accenture Accelerated R&D Standards Metadata Management – version control and its governance Kevin Lee CDISC NJ Meeting at 01/28/2015 We help our Clients.
Traceability between SDTM and ADaM converted analysis datasets
NPQonline - Final Assessment
Multi-Sectoral Nutrition Action Planning Training Module
Fabienne NOEL CDISC – 2013, December 18th
Aparna Kulkarni, Data Scientist
Visualizing Subject Level Data in Clinical Trial Data
WG4: Data Guide/Data Description Work Group Meeting
SDTM and ADaM Implementation FAQ
This presentation document has been prepared by Vault Intelligence Limited (“Vault") and is intended for off line demonstration, presentation and educational.
Kentucky’s Professional Growth and Effectiveness System
ISO and TR Update for FDA Regulated Industries
Presentation transcript:

CDISC SDS Oncology Domains: An Orientation to Aid Review & Feedback Barrie Nelson CDISC SDS Oncology Sub Team Lead

Agenda Purpose of this Presentation The Documentation Package The Development Team Purpose & Rationale An Overview of the proposed domains –TU : Tumor Identification –TR : Tumor Results –RS : Response Solicited Feedback Review Comments Next Steps

Purpose of this Presentation The assessment of the FDA Review Divisions as to whether the proposed domains are fit for their intended purpose is an essential element in the development of these TA specific SDTM domains. This presentation is intended to provide an orientation to the Oncology Domains package that will facilitate a more focused review.

The Documentation Package Package location:

The Documentation Package Navigate the folder tree down to the SDS Team Review Folder:

The Documentation Package The Review package contents: Tumor Domain Specifications –TU_TR_RS doc –Contains the SDTM specification for each of the proposed domains Tumor Domain Examples –Tumor Domain Examples xls –The spreadsheet contains brief data examples for each domain Oncology_CT –Oncology_CT__ _DRAFT.xls –Controlled Terminology will be developed for these domains this spreadsheet contains a preliminary set of values SDS_Review_Comments –SDS_Review_Comments.xls –Spreadsheet for recording comments. Please return all comment spreadsheets to –All comments will be discussed and dispositioned by the CDISC SDS Onc SIG and documentation will be updated accordingly.

The Development Team The development of oncology specific SDTM domains been ongoing for a number of years. This is a CDISC SDS sub-team effort with participation from additional Subject Matter Experts. During the development of the domains input has been provided by: –CDSIC SDS team members with an interest in Oncology –CDISC ADaM team members –Sponsor company Oncologists –Oncology Imaging vendors –FDA representation –NCI representation The current SDTM specifications have recently been reviewed by the wider CDISC SDS team The final documentation will either be incorporated as an Appendix to the SDTM-IG or exist as standalone, implementation specific, documentation

Purpose & Rationale Intended to represent data collected in clinical trials where tumors are: –Identified –Repeatedly measured/assessed –Used in an evaluation of therapeutic response Developed primarily with RECIST Criteria in mind and therefore data collected in solid tumor studies. –However, the domains should be appropriate for use in the assessment of other types of cancer such as lymphomas or gliomas Three Domains (TU / TR / RS) have been developed to provide a standardized representation to: –Reduce data redundancy –Provide a relational approach aligned with current SDS philosophy

TU : Tumor Identification Data that uniquely identifies a tumor. –Identified by an investigator and/or independent assessor In RECIST terms this equates to the identification of: –Target –Non-Target –New tumors A record in the TU domain contains the following information: –Unique tumor ID value; –Anatomical location of the tumor; –Method used to identify the tumor; –Role of the individual identifying the tumor; –Timing information.

TR : Tumor Results Represents quantitative measurements and/or qualitative assessments of the tumors identified in the TU domain. –Measurements are usually taken at baseline and then at each subsequent assessment (or visit) to support response evaluations. A record in the TR domain contains the following information: –unique tumor ID value; –Testcd/Test –Result –Method used –Role of the individual assessing the tumor –Timing information. The TR domain does not include anatomical location information on each measurement record because this would be a duplication of information already represented in TU. –This was a deciding factor in the multi-domain approach

RS : Response The RS domain represents the response evaluation determined from the data in TR. Data from other sources (other SDTM domains) might also be used in an assessment of response. For example: –MacDonald Response Criteria includes a neurological aspect. Should the Response Criteria used in the clinical trial be represented in the TS domain? –Rationale: the Response Criteria is really Study level metadata data and all subjects would be assessed using the same criteria. –Representing the criteria used on each record within the Responses domain would seem a little redundant. –A standardized TSPARM/TSVAL would be needed

Solicited Feedback 1.Should the proposed new SDTM variables be added to the SDTM model? –Do they add value and might they be have use in other domains? 2.Extend CT for the ND to include NOT APPLICABLE, etc. 3.Standardized SuppQual vars are proposed for more detailed anatomical location information – do these make sense? 4.Is “BONE SCAN” a commonly seen METHOD?

Solicited Feedback (contd.) 5.RECIST criteria calls for a value of 5mm to be recorded when a tumor is too small to measure. How should this standardization be represented in the TR domain? –Two methods for representing this can be found in the Domain Examples spreadsheet: Row 54 provides the information on a single row and uses the ORRES & STRESC/STRESN variables to provide the standardization. Rows 55 & 56 provide a 2 row approach to representing this information. Which method is preferred? The single row option is preferred by the Onc sub team 6.Should the Response Criteria used in the clinical trial be represented in the TS domain? –Response Criteria is really Study level metadata data - all subjects would be assessed using the same criteria. –Representing the criteria used on each record within the RS domain would seem redundant.

Review Comments Please provide all comments, including responses to solicited feedback, in the SDS_Review_Comments.xls spreadsheet provided in the review package. Please return all comment spreadsheets to Agree on a deadline for providing feedback

Next Steps Feedback/Comment discussion: Follow-up Meeting? or Inclusion of FDA representatives in Onc Sub-team comments disposition discussions? Longer Term FDA Involvement in ongoing CDISC SDS Onc sub-team?