Bridging the data latency gap: automated extraction of genomic biomarkers from unstructured clinical documents to support real-world oncology data.

IF 2.1
Qianyun Luo, Rui Zhang, Nikitha Vobugari, Jane Y C Hui, Schelomo Marmor
{"title":"Bridging the data latency gap: automated extraction of genomic biomarkers from unstructured clinical documents to support real-world oncology data.","authors":"Qianyun Luo, Rui Zhang, Nikitha Vobugari, Jane Y C Hui, Schelomo Marmor","doi":"10.1007/s10552-026-02252-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Real-world oncology data are essential for clinical research and precision cancer care. However, genomic biomarkers are often embedded in scanned, unstructured clinical documents requiring manual abstraction before becoming available in cancer registries, delaying real-world evidence generation. This study evaluated and compared three open-source optical character recognition (OCR) approaches, Tesseract, EasyOCR, and a hybrid implementation, to determine which best enables automated extraction of Oncotype DX recurrence scores and improves the timeliness and quality of real-world oncology data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated the feasibility of automated genomic data extraction using 675 Oncotype DX reports from a Midwestern U.S. health system. EasyOCR, Tesseract, and a hybrid OCR approach were used to extract recurrence scores from scanned reports. OCR-derived values were compared with manually abstracted scores and local cancer registry data. Performance was assessed using agreement, precision, recall, F1 score, and processing time. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with discordance between registry-reported and manually abstracted scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The hybrid OCR approach demonstrated the highest performance, achieving 97% agreement with manual abstraction, precision of 0.997, recall of 0.972, and an F1 score of 0.984. Registry abstraction demonstrated comparable performance but required greater manual effort. Automated extraction substantially reduced processing time while maintaining high accuracy. Logistic regression showed registry discordance was largely independent of patient and tumor characteristics, with unknown progesterone receptor (PR) status as the only significant predictor.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Automated extraction of genomic biomarkers represents a scalable approach to reducing delays in cancer data availability. Earlier capture of genomic information may support cancer registry modernization and improve real-world evidence generation in precision oncology.</p>","PeriodicalId":520579,"journal":{"name":"Cancer causes & control : CCC","volume":"37 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13590437/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer causes & control : CCC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-026-02252-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Real-world oncology data are essential for clinical research and precision cancer care. However, genomic biomarkers are often embedded in scanned, unstructured clinical documents requiring manual abstraction before becoming available in cancer registries, delaying real-world evidence generation. This study evaluated and compared three open-source optical character recognition (OCR) approaches, Tesseract, EasyOCR, and a hybrid implementation, to determine which best enables automated extraction of Oncotype DX recurrence scores and improves the timeliness and quality of real-world oncology data.

Methods: We evaluated the feasibility of automated genomic data extraction using 675 Oncotype DX reports from a Midwestern U.S. health system. EasyOCR, Tesseract, and a hybrid OCR approach were used to extract recurrence scores from scanned reports. OCR-derived values were compared with manually abstracted scores and local cancer registry data. Performance was assessed using agreement, precision, recall, F1 score, and processing time. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with discordance between registry-reported and manually abstracted scores.

Results: The hybrid OCR approach demonstrated the highest performance, achieving 97% agreement with manual abstraction, precision of 0.997, recall of 0.972, and an F1 score of 0.984. Registry abstraction demonstrated comparable performance but required greater manual effort. Automated extraction substantially reduced processing time while maintaining high accuracy. Logistic regression showed registry discordance was largely independent of patient and tumor characteristics, with unknown progesterone receptor (PR) status as the only significant predictor.

Conclusion: Automated extraction of genomic biomarkers represents a scalable approach to reducing delays in cancer data availability. Earlier capture of genomic information may support cancer registry modernization and improve real-world evidence generation in precision oncology.

弥合数据延迟差距:从非结构化临床文件中自动提取基因组生物标志物,以支持现实世界的肿瘤学数据。
目的:真实世界的肿瘤数据对临床研究和精确的癌症治疗至关重要。然而,基因组生物标志物通常嵌入扫描的非结构化临床文件中,需要人工提取才能在癌症登记处使用,从而延迟了真实世界证据的生成。本研究评估和比较了三种开源光学字符识别(OCR)方法,Tesseract, EasyOCR和混合实现,以确定哪种方法最能自动提取Oncotype DX复发评分,并提高现实世界肿瘤数据的时时性和质量。方法:我们使用来自美国中西部卫生系统的675份Oncotype DX报告,评估了自动化基因组数据提取的可行性。EasyOCR、Tesseract和混合OCR方法用于从扫描报告中提取复发评分。将ocr衍生值与人工提取的评分和当地癌症登记数据进行比较。使用一致性、准确性、召回率、F1分数和处理时间来评估性能。进行多变量逻辑回归,以确定与注册报告和人工抽象分数之间不一致相关的因素。结果:混合OCR方法与人工提取的准确率为97%,准确率为0.997,召回率为0.972,F1得分为0.984。注册表抽象展示了类似的性能,但需要更多的手工工作。自动提取大大缩短了处理时间,同时保持了高精度。Logistic回归显示,注册表不一致在很大程度上与患者和肿瘤特征无关,未知的孕激素受体(PR)状态是唯一显著的预测因子。结论:基因组生物标志物的自动提取代表了一种可扩展的方法,可以减少癌症数据可用性的延迟。早期获取基因组信息可以支持癌症登记现代化,并改善精确肿瘤学中真实世界的证据生成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书