LBA1 Background: Racial disparities in cancer outcomes remain a societal challenge. The ACA sought to improve equity in healthcare access and outcomes by permitting states to expand Medicaid and providing subsidies for purchase of private insurance. We assessed the impact of Medicaid expansions on racial disparities in time to treatment among patients (pts) with advanced cancer. Methods: We selected pts ages 18-64 years with advanced or metastatic cancer (NSCLC, breast, urothelial, gastric, colorectal, renal cell, prostate, and melanoma), diagnosed between Jan 1, 2011 and Dec 31, 2018, from the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived database. We assigned expansion status based on whether the pts’ state of residence had expanded Medicaid as of the diagnosis date. We estimated Medicaid expansion-related changes in the rate of “timely treatment,” an outcome defined as first-line treatment start within 30 days of advanced or metastatic diagnosis. Regression model covariates included race (White, African American, Asian, and Other race), age, sex, practice type, cancer type, stage, and unemployment rate, using time and state fixed-effects. Regression results present predictive margins. Results: The study included 34,067 pts (median age 57 years; 12% African American). Racial disparities were observed pre-expansion: African American pts were 4.9 percentage points (%pt) less likely to receive timely treatment (Table). Regardless of race, Medicaid expansion trended toward an increase in timely treatment overall (p = 0.05). Expansion was associated with a differential benefit for African American vs white pts (6.9 %pt and 1.8 %pt). Prior racial disparities were no longer observed after Medicaid expansion. Conclusions: Implementation of Medicaid expansions as part of the ACA differentially improved African American cancer pts’ receipt of timely treatment, reducing racial disparities in access to care.[Table: see text]

A vast amount of real-world data, such as pathology reports and clinical notes, are captured as unstructured text in electronic health records (EHRs). However, this information is both difficult and costly to extract through human abstraction, especially when scaling to large datasets is needed. Fortunately, Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML) techniques provide promising solutions for a variety of information extraction tasks such as identifying a group of patients who have a specific diagnosis, share common characteristics, or show progression of a disease. However, using these ML-extracted data for research still introduces unique challenges in assessing validity and generalizability to different cohorts of interest. In order to enable effective and accurate use of ML-extracted real-world data (RWD) to support research and real-world evidence generation, we propose a research-centric evaluation framework for model developers, ML-extracted data users and other RWD stakeholders. This framework covers the fundamentals of evaluating RWD produced using ML methods to maximize the use of EHR data for research purposes.

Meaningful real-world evidence (RWE) generation requires unstructured data found in electronic health records (EHRs) which are often missing from administrative claims; however, obtaining relevant data from unstructured EHR sources is resource-intensive. In response, researchers are using natural language processing (NLP) with machine learning (ML) techniques (i.e., ML extraction) to extract real-world data (RWD) at scale. This study assessed the quality and fitness-for-use of EHR-derived oncology data curated using NLP with ML as compared to the reference standard of expert abstraction. Using a sample of 186,313 patients with lung cancer from a nationwide EHR-derived de-identified database, we performed a series of replication analyses demonstrating some common analyses conducted in retrospective observational research with complex EHR-derived data to generate evidence. Eligible patients were selected into biomarker- and treatment-defined cohorts, first with expert-abstracted then with ML-extracted data. We utilized the biomarker- and treatment-defined cohorts to perform analyses related to biomarker-associated survival and treatment comparative effectiveness, respectively. Across all analyses, the results differed by less than 8% between the data curation methods, and similar conclusions were reached. These results highlight that high-performance ML-extracted variables trained on expert-abstracted data can achieve similar results as when using abstracted data, unlocking the ability to perform oncology research at scale.

BackgroundAs artificial intelligence (AI) continues to advance with breakthroughs in natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML), such as the development of models like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, new opportunities are emerging for efficient curation of electronic health records (EHR) into real-world data (RWD) for evidence generation in oncology. Our objective is to describe the research and development of industry methods to promote transparency and explainability.MethodsWe applied NLP with ML techniques to train, validate, and test the extraction of information from unstructured documents (eg, clinician notes, radiology reports, lab reports, etc.) to output a set of structured variables required for RWD analysis. This research used a nationwide electronic health record (EHR)-derived database. Models were selected based on performance. Variables curated with an approach using ML extraction are those where the value is determined solely based on an ML model (ie, not confirmed by abstraction), which identifies key information from visit notes and documents. These models do not predict future events or infer missing information.ResultsWe developed an approach using NLP and ML for extraction of clinically meaningful information from unstructured EHR documents and found high performance of output variables compared with variables curated by manually abstracted data. These extraction methods resulted in research-ready variables including initial cancer diagnosis with date, advanced/metastatic diagnosis with date, disease stage, histology, smoking status, surgery status with date, biomarker test results with dates, and oral treatments with dates.ConclusionsNLP and ML enable the extraction of retrospective clinical data in EHR with speed and scalability to help researchers learn from the experience of every person with cancer.

No abstract

No abstract

to make reproductive and healthcare decisions. Screening for breast/ovarian cancer in older women may offer lower value in isolation, but its cost-effectiveness should be assessed within the context of a broader screening panel for other diseases.

PURPOSE To facilitate identification of clinical trial participation candidates, we developed a machine learning tool that automates the determination of a patient's metastatic status, on the basis of unstructured electronic health record (EHR) data. METHODS This tool scans EHR documents, extracting text snippet features surrounding key words (such as metastatic, progression, and local). A regularized logistic regression model was trained and used to classify patients across five metastatic categories: highly likely and likely positive, highly likely and likely negative, and unknown. Using a real-world oncology database of patients with solid tumors with manually abstracted information as reference, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV). We validated the performance in a real-world data set, evaluating accuracy gains upon additional user review of tool's outputs after integration into clinic workflows. RESULTS In the training data set (N = 66,532), the model sensitivity and specificity (% [95% CI]) were 82.4 [81.9 to 83.0] and 95.5 [95.3 to 96.7], respectively; the PPV was 89.3 [88.8 to 90.0], and the NPV was 94.0 [93.8 to 94.2]. In the validation sample (n = 200 from five distinct care sites), after user review of model outputs, values increased to 97.1 [85.1 to 99.9] for sensitivity, 98.2 [94.8 to 99.6] for specificity, 91.9 [78.1 to 98.3] for PPV, and 99.4 [96.6 to 100.0] for NPV. The model assigned 163 of 200 patients to the highly likely categories. The error prevalence was 4% before and 2% after user review. CONCLUSION This tool infers metastatic status from unstructured EHR data with high accuracy and high confidence in more than 75% of cases, without requiring additional manual review. By enabling efficient characterization of metastatic status, this tool could mitigate a key barrier for patient ascertainment and clinical trial participation in community clinics.