Natural Language Processing to Ascertain Cancer Outcomes from Medical Oncologist Notes
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: Cancer research using electronic health records and genomic data sets requires clinical outcomes data, which may be recorded only in unstructured text by treating oncologists. Natural language processing (NLP) could substantially accelerate extraction of this information. METHODS: Patients with lung cancer who had tumor sequencing as part of a single-institution precision oncology study from 2013 to 2018 were identified. Medical oncologists' progress notes for these patients were reviewed. For each note, curators recorded whether the assessment/plan indicated any cancer, progression/worsening of disease, and/or response to therapy or improving disease. Next, a recurrent neural network was trained using unlabeled notes to extract the assessment/plan from each note. Finally, convolutional neural networks were trained on labeled assessments/plans to predict the probability that each curated outcome was present. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) among a held-out test set of 10% of patients. Associations between curated response or progression end points and overall survival were measured using Cox models among patients receiving palliative-intent systemic therapy. RESULTS: Medical oncologist notes (n = 7,597) were manually curated for 919 patients. In the 10% test set, NLP models replicated human curation with AUROCs of 0.94 for the any-cancer outcome, 0.86 for the progression outcome, and 0.90 for the response outcome. Progression/worsening events identified using NLP models were associated with shortened survival (hazard ratio [HR] for mortality, 2.49; 95% CI, 2.00 to 3.09); response/improvement events were associated with improved survival (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.67). CONCLUSION: NLP models based on neural networks can extract meaningful outcomes from oncologist notes at scale. Such models may facilitate identification of clinical and genomic features associated with response to cancer treatment.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Natural language processing increases productivity in clinical oncology by converting unstructured text into analyzable data and standardizing documentation.
“Natural language processing (NLP) increases productivity in clinical oncology by converting unstructured text into analyzable data and standardizing documentation [41,42,43,44,45,46].”
From Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Oncology: From Productivity Enhancement to Creative Discovery (2025) · cites this paper as [44]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 22 · Cited by 90
- Authors
- Kehl, K. L., Xu, W., Lepisto, E., Elmarakeby, H., Hassett, M. J., Van Allen, E. M., Johnson, B. E., & Schrag, D.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
- Broad Institute (US)
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
- ORCID
- Venue
- JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
- Published
- 2020-11
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 680-690
- ISSN
- 2473-4276 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7469582
- OpenAlex
- W3047190783
- Cited by
- 90
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 4.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (K05CA169384, K99CA245899, R00CA245899)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
- Keywords
- natural language processing, lung cancer, tumor sequencing, precision oncology, disease progression, treatment response, overall survival, recurrent neural networks, convolutional neural networks, clinical text
- MeSH terms
- Oncologists, Humans, Natural Language Processing, Neoplasms, Precision Medicine, Electronic Health Records
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review