Cited by 90Machine Learning in HealthcareBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

Natural Language Processing to Ascertain Cancer Outcomes from Medical Oncologist Notes

Open access
Kehl, Kenneth L., Xu, Wenxin, Lepisto, Eva, Elmarakeby, Haitham, Hassett, Michael J., Van Allen, Eliezer M., Johnson, Bruce E., Schrag, Deborah·2020·JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/cci.20.00020

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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].”

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
Venue
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
Published
2020-11
Volume
4
Issue
4
Pages
680-690
ISSN
2473-4276 (ISSN-L)
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
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