Page History
Example 1: Observed abnormality that's also a lesion "target" for study intervention
The subject had a chest CT scan and an abdominal CT scan.
...
| title | cv.xpt |
|---|---|
| Name | PR |
...
Row
...
STUDYID
...
DOMAIN
...
USUBJID
...
PRTRT
...
VISIT
...
The chest CT revealed a large aneurysm in the thoracic aorta which is "target" for study intervention. Note the use of the NSV TUFLAG to show that this abnormality is also considered as a lesion for study intervention, tracking and/or disease response to treatment assessment.
...
| title | cv.xpt |
|---|---|
| Name | cv |
...
| hi3 | TURESLOC |
|---|---|
| hi2style | yellow |
| hi3style | BOLD |
A concept map that helps me to understand all the questions and the impact of a separate non-tumor lesion domain:
| Include Page | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Question 1: just because something is considered as a lesion, does that mean that it should be mapped to the lesion domains?
Two aneurysms are identified in the thoracic and abdominal regions, one is considered as "target" for study treatment and the other "non-target" for study treatment.
CVREFID provides the unique identifier for each identified aneurysm.
CVLNKID will link the CV records to other domain datasets, such as RS and CC for disease response to treatment and clinical classification data (data not shown).
CVGRPID is used to group data for target and non-target aneurysms.
| Dataset2 |
|---|
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
Shows the TU representation of the target lesions:
...
| title | cv.xpt |
|---|---|
| Name | TU |
...
Row
...
STUDYID
...
DOMAIN
...
USUBJID
...
TUTEST
...
TULOC
...
TUORRES
...
TUMETHOD
...
VISITNUM
...
VISIT
...
TUDTC
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
Shows the diameter measurements of the target lesion in TR:
...
| title | cv.xpt |
|---|---|
| Name | TR |
...
Row
...
STUDYID
...
DOMAIN
...
USUBJID
...
TRTEST
...
TRORRES
...
TRSTRESC
...
TRSTRESU
...
VISITNUM
...
VISIT
...
TUDTC
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
The TU/TR/RS domains were created for tumors which in themselves don't belong in any body system domains (tumor can grow and spread to any place), hence they are in their own domains. At some point, non-tumor lesion was added to TU/TR. SDTM now has body-system domains, it then begs the question whether a separate non-tumor lesion domain is needed, when most "lesions" and things that could be considered as lesions, can go into their respective body-system domains. Can the body system domains offer the "unique lesion identifier" through the use of, GRPID, REFID, or other identifier variables?
Question 2: how do you map lesions that are non-target for study treatment?
TU/TR/RS were originally built to assess tumor response to "study" treatment. Both "target" and "non-target" tumors receive the same study treatment, are then tracked and evaluated. "Target" and "non-target" tumor properties are mapped to TR and their responses to treatment are mapped to RS. Depending on the criteria used, "Target" and "non-target" tumor responses to treatment are evaluated a little differently. "Non-target" in the tumor context, does NOT mean, "not treated by study intervention".
In the CV data element projects, non-target is used to describe a lesion that will NOT be treated by a study intervention. Such a lesion may be untreated, managed by a non-study drug, or treated with a non-study device or procedure. This type of data has also been mapped into TU and TR, is this correct? If TU/TR are built to house lesion response to study treatment type of data, then I think the CV modeling is incorrect, and if so, how do we deal with it?
Example 2: Observed abnormality that's
...
a lesion, but "non-target" for study intervention, it is
...
not treated and continuously monitored.
A small aneurysm is revealed by the abdomen CT scan. This aneurysm is small and is considered as "non-target" for study intervention, it is untreated and continuously monitored. Not sure whether this can be mapped to TU/TR, hence mapped to CV.
| Dataset wrap | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
The dissected descending aorta (LNKID =Dissection 1) is classified based on the Stanford Aortic Dissection System as type B.
...
|
Example 3: Observed abnormality that's also a lesion and "target" for study intervention
The chest CT revealed a large aneurysm in the thoracic aorta which is "target" for study intervention. Note the use of the NSV TUFLAG to show that this abnormality is also considered as a target lesion for study intervention, tracking and/or disease response to treatment assessment. When the TUFLAG is marked with Y, measurements of the lesion should be represented in TU, TR and/or RS.
| Dataset wrap | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
...
| |
|
...
|
...
RSLNKID
...
RSTESTCD
...
RSORRES
...
|
...
|
Shows the TU representation of the target lesions:
| Dataset wrap | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Show the diameter measurements of the target lesion in TR at two visits:
| Dataset wrap | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
...
|
What goes into TULOC?
After all this, i struggle with what values should go into TULOC. When a CT scans the chest, it produces cross-sectional images of the chest/thorax and everything in it. You can view the images in three angles: a) axial view (you are looking at the picture of the thorax from the direction of head to toe), b) the coronal view (you are looking at the images of the thorax as if you are standing in front of the person), c) sagittal view (you are looking at the picture of the thorax from the side). Hence TULOCs are populated with Thoracic Region and Abdominal Region for now. Especially in the axial view, as you move from cross-sectional images of the thorax to images of the abdomen, you are looking at sectioned images of the thoracic region to abdominal region, there is no mistake about which region you are looking at because the anatomy of both regions are so different and clearly sperpated. I think it is not wrong to populate TULOC with chest and abdomen as well, they are just not the most precise anatomical terms.
| Info | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
Imaging modality for the CV-imaging project: Coronary angiography:
Thransthoracic Echocardiogram (TTE):
Transesophageal Echocardiogram (TEE):
Cine Angiography:
In addition, i just recently took a family member to have a Thyroid Ultrasound:
Referring to Richard M's email: LOC in the interventions class is "Anatomical focus of an intervention - at which part of the body an intervention is being made". This also my understanding as well.
It is easy to pinpoint a location for invasive/treatment type interventions and this aligns with my understanding of how PRLOC should be used. However, for "diagnostic imaging" procedures, where the imaging probe is placed (i.e. neck, chest, abdomen, head, etc.), Is this really the location where a intervention is "made"? |
Overview
Content Tools