RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Identifying secondary findings in PET/CT reports in oncological cases: A quantifying study using automated Natural Language Processing
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.12.02.22283043
DO 10.1101/2022.12.02.22283043
A1 Sekler, Julia
A1 Kämpgen, Benedikt
A1 Reinert, Christian Philipp
A1 Daul, Andreas
A1 Gückel, Brigitte
A1 Dittmann, Helmut
A1 Pfannenberg, Christina
A1 Gatidis, Sergios
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/05/2022.12.02.22283043.abstract
AB Background Because of their accuracy, positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) examinations are ideally suited for the identification of secondary findings but there are only few quantitative studies on the frequency and number of those.Most radiology reports are freehand written and thus secondary findings are not presented as structured evaluable information and the effort to manually extract them reliably is a challenge. Thus we report on the use of natural language processing (NLP) to identify secondary findings from PET/CT conclusions.Methods 4,680 anonymized German PET/CT radiology conclusions of five major primary tumor entities were included in this study. Using a commercially available NLP tool, secondary findings were annotated in an automated approach. The performance of the algorithm in classifying primary diagnoses was evaluated by statistical comparison to the ground truth as recorded in the patient registry. Accuracy of automated classification of secondary findings within the written conclusions was assessed in comparison to a subset of manually evaluated conclusions.Results The NLP method was evaluated twice. First, to detect the previously known principal diagnosis, with an F1 score between 0.65 and 0.95 among 5 different principal diagnoses.Second, affirmed and speculated secondary diagnoses were annotated, and the error rate of false positives and false negatives was evaluated. Overall, rates of false-positive findings (1.0%-5.8%) and misclassification (0%-1.1%) were low compared with the overall rate of annotated diagnoses. Error rates for false-negative annotations ranged from 6.1% to 24%. More often, several secondary findings were not fully captured in a conclusion. This error rate ranged from 6.8% to 45.5%.Conclusions NLP technology can be used to analyze unstructured medical data efficiently and quickly from radiological conclusions, despite the complexity of human language. In the given use case, secondary findings were reliably found in in PET/CT conclusions from different main diagnoses.Competing Interest StatementI have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests:BK is an employee of Empolis Information Management GmbH (Kaiserslautern, Germany). The other authors declare no conflict of interest.Funding StatementThe author(s) received no specific funding for this work.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was approved by the Ethics committee of the University of Tuebingen, reference number 064/2013B01. Written informed consents were waived due to retrospective nature.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to sensitive information of patients but are available in anonymous form from the corresponding author on reasonable request.PET/CTPositron emission tomography/computed tomographyNLPNatural language processingAIArtificial intelligenceRadLexRadiological LexiconICDInternational Classification of DiseasesNHLNon-hodgkin-lymphomalung-CALung cancerprostate-CAProstate cancerNETNeuroendocrine tumorSFSecondary findingsSGSubgroupsSTSecondary tumorsFPFalse-positiveFNFalse-negative