CDR Tickets

BZDATETIME::2011-04-19 11:59:29
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::1

Please remind me, are we creating a new document type for the vendor output or are we converting these documents to match the CTGovProtocols DTD?

BZDATETIME::2011-04-19 13:25:09
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::2

For the short term at least, we will be creating CT.gov protocols for Cancer.gov.

BZDATETIME::2011-05-11 15:00:44
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::3

I hope it's OK to drop the priority for these CTRP issues in order to move them to the bottom of my priority list. I'll move them up as soon as the work on these issues needs to resume.

BZDATETIME::2011-09-15 16:24:19
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::4

As discussed at the status meeting it is time to awake these CTRP issues from their beauty sleep and bring them back.
Changing priority.

BZDATETIME::2011-09-23 12:27:11
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::5

My feeling from yesterday's CDR status meeting was that it's OK to put these CTRP issues back in the box.
I'm lowering the priority for now.

BZDATETIME::2011-10-26 15:12:26
BZCOMMENTOR::Margaret Beckwith
BZCOMMENT::6

I changed the summary title, and also upped the priority.

BZDATETIME::2011-11-17 11:16:16
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::7

1.CTRP data would show the following email address ncictepcoppaservices@mail.nih.gov. This is not the right email address so we need to suppress it before we go live. When the email address is corrected in their data, we can then expose the new email address. The email address appears under the lead_sponsor or lead_sponsor but it could also appear in other places as well especially wherever "Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program" is mentioned

2. Also, CTRP is in the process of changing the text of the lead_sponsor from "Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program" to "National Cancer Institute". Until this is corrected, we need to suppress or be able to replace their data with "National Cancer Institute".

BZDATETIME::2011-11-18 14:06:01
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::8

I'm wondering if the changes to the CTGovProtocols in regard to the CTRPInfo are stable enough to start modifying the vendor filters?

BZDATETIME::2011-11-18 15:20:37
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::9

(In reply to comment #8)
> I'm wondering if the changes to the CTGovProtocols in regard to the CTRPInfo
> are stable enough to start modifying the vendor filters?

Interesting that you should ask that questions. CTRP just dropped a change to their schema on us during this afternoon's call, and the address block will no longer be present for the contact or investigator blocks. So, no, it's not stable yet. Doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't start modifying. Why should I have all the fun of rewriting? :-)

BZDATETIME::2011-11-22 11:01:40
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::10

I've modified the vendor filter to include the CTRPFacility information but based on Bob's latest comment I'll wait a little more to let the CTRP schema settle before I'll continue with the changes.

BZDATETIME::2011-12-28 14:56:16
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::11

The vendor filters are ready for testing on MAHLER.

BZDATETIME::2011-12-29 10:26:13
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::12

(In reply to comment #11)
> The vendor filters are ready for testing on MAHLER.

Could you also make the changes on Franck? The test document CDR573235 on Mahler doesn't have a required attribute.

BZDATETIME::2011-12-29 19:04:29
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::13

The following filter has been copied to FRANCK:
CDR349693.xml - Vendor Filter: CTGovProtocol - R10275

BZDATETIME::2012-03-15 10:24:15
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::14

The CTRPOverallOfficial block has been added to the schema. Please make appropriate changes to the vendor filters.

BZDATETIME::2012-04-18 12:02:15
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::15

(In reply to comment #14)
> The CTRPOverallOfficial block has been added to the schema. Please make
> appropriate changes to the vendor filters.

I'm guessing that none of the CTRPOverallOfficial information will be supplied to the licensees (or Cancer.gov) or is this wrong?

BZDATETIME::2012-04-18 16:37:39
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::16

(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
> > The CTRPOverallOfficial block has been added to the schema. Please make
> > appropriate changes to the vendor filters.
>
> I'm guessing that none of the CTRPOverallOfficial information will be supplied
> to the licensees (or Cancer.gov) or is this wrong?

It will be published on Cancer.gov.

BZDATETIME::2012-04-20 12:21:38
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::17

(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > (In reply to comment #14)
> > > The CTRPOverallOfficial block has been added to the schema. Please make
> > > appropriate changes to the vendor filters.
> >
> > I'm guessing that none of the CTRPOverallOfficial information will be supplied
> > to the licensees (or Cancer.gov) or is this wrong?
>
> It will be published on Cancer.gov.

After looking at the DTDs, I can confirm that we are publishing the OverallOfficial for the CTGov document to Cancer.gov and we will want to continue to do that when we start importing CTRP data. Per our discussions yesterday, there could be duplicates. At least, there are duplicates in the CTGovProtocol documents but that is because under Sponsors, there is the OverallOfficial, OverallContact and OverallBackup and all of these could be one and the same person [See sample links below]. However, it does not look like the CTRP data is structured that way so we may not run into similar duplicates as we have with the CTGovProtocol documents. One way in which we could have duplicates is if CTRP provides us with an OverallOfficial and in addition provide us with a site PI who is the same person as the OverallOfficial. This could be rare but it is possible.

CDR0000731893
http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/view?cdrid=731893&version=HealthProfessional&protocolsearchid=10333818.

CDR0000731896
http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/view?cdrid=731896&version=HealthProfessional&protocolsearchid=10333820

BZDATETIME::2012-04-20 18:43:30
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::18

If I understand you correctly you need me to display the CTRPOverallOfficial information as OverallOfficial information in the vendor output.
Do you have a preference if we display the CTRP information first or last?

BZDATETIME::2012-04-23 09:09:17
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::19

(In reply to comment #18)
> If I understand you correctly you need me to display the CTRPOverallOfficial
> information as OverallOfficial information in the vendor output.
> Do you have a preference if we display the CTRP information first or last?

Actually I am not asking for a change. We just want to know how it is currently displayed on Cancer.gov from the CTGovProtocol and follow the same convention with the CTRP data. It looks like currently it is displayed under "Trial Lead Organizations/Sponsors" heading on Cancer.gov without the OverallOfficial designation and we want to do the same with the CTRP data.

BZDATETIME::2012-05-02 16:25:49
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::20

The OverallOfficial in the vendor output doesn't include a phone number to display but the OverallContact does. I've mapped the CTRPOverallOfficial to the OverallOfficial in the vendor output.
Should the CTRPOverallOfficial information be duplicated in the OverallContact block and displayed with the phone number(s) and email or how else should this be handled?

BZDATETIME::2012-05-02 17:35:20
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::21

(In reply to comment #20)
> The OverallOfficial in the vendor output doesn't include a phone number to
> display but the OverallContact does. I've mapped the CTRPOverallOfficial to
> the OverallOfficial in the vendor output.
> Should the CTRPOverallOfficial information be duplicated in the OverallContact
> block and displayed with the phone number(s) and email or how else should this
> be handled?

If we go with your suggestion, will you override the OverallContact data from CTGov in case we do receive that information and also receive data for the CTRPOverallOfficial from CTRP? I am asking because the OverallContact element belongs to the CTGovProtocol section of the schema and we don't have a corresponding CTRPOverallContact.
If that will create a problem, would it be possible to create a phone number in the Vendor output for the CTRPOverallOfficial? In that case, it looks like Cancer.gov may have to make changes to accommodate this change.

BZDATETIME::2012-05-02 17:57:52
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::22

At the moment I'm displaying everything that's included in the document since I haven't seen any instructions of which parts of the CTGov or CTRP information should be overwriting the other. If you want me to drop the OverallContact information I can do that.
Are there any other rules that need to be implemented?

BZDATETIME::2012-05-02 18:23:43
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::23

(In reply to comment #22)
> At the moment I'm displaying everything that's included in the document since I
> haven't seen any instructions of which parts of the CTGov or CTRP information
> should be overwriting the other. If you want me to drop the OverallContact
> information I can do that.

Sure. As long as you will be able to display the CTRPOverallOfficial info including the phone number, it will be fine if you dropped the OverallContact. Just to clarify, you will drop it only when CTRP data is present in a protocol, right? We can discuss this further if you want. But the general idea is that, for any CTGovProtocol that is identified as a CTRP protocol, I suppose by the presence of the CTRP block, we will display the site or contact info of the CTRP data and not the site/contact info from CTGov/NLM. All other CTGov trials will continue to be displayed the way they are now.

> Are there any other rules that need to be implemented?

The only rule I know of is and as stated above, for trials that are updated by CTRP, we will display the contact/site data coming from CTRP instead of the one from CTGov. So, CTRP data will take precedence over CTGov data when it comes to the sites/contact info. As for the scientific data, we will always display the data from CTGov.

BZDATETIME::2012-05-02 19:20:41
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::24

That's useful information!

Suppose the CTRP information exists but the optional phone number is missing (we just have a name).
In that case do you want me to create the OverallContact block or not?
What if a phone number does not exist but an email address or FAX number does?

BZDATETIME::2012-05-02 19:48:19
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::25

Another question:
The schema allows multiple phone numbers, emails, fax numbers; the DTD does not.
Should we concatenate multiple entries or display the first one only?

BZDATETIME::2012-05-03 09:44:52
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::26

(In reply to comment #24)
> That's useful information!
>
> Suppose the CTRP information exists but the optional phone number is missing
> (we just have a name).
> In that case do you want me to create the OverallContact block or not?

I will say yes but we need to clarify this with Margaret since it will mean displaying the contact information from CTGov instead of CTRP and it will be going against the rule that we are only displaying site/contact information from CTRP when it exists.

> What if a phone number does not exist but an email address or FAX number does?

Are you referring to the email address from the CTRPOverallOfficial? Yes, display the email address if that is provided however, don't display the Fax number even if it is the only contact information provided.

BZDATETIME::2012-05-03 09:59:23
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::27

(In reply to comment #26)
> > Suppose the CTRP information exists but the optional phone number is missing
> > (we just have a name).
> > In that case do you want me to create the OverallContact block or not?
>
> I will say yes but we need to clarify this with Margaret since it will mean
> displaying the contact information from CTGov instead of CTRP

This is an incorrect conclusion. We have already established the rule not to display any CTGov contact information when the CTRP block exists.
I would still create the OverallContact block but it would only contain a name and nothing else.

BZDATETIME::2012-05-03 10:22:05
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::28

(In reply to comment #27)

Are you creating the OverallContact when all data for the CTRPOverallOfficial information exist?

BZDATETIME::2012-05-03 10:34:54
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::29

(In reply to comment #28)
> Are you creating the OverallContact when all data for the CTRPOverallOfficial
> information exist?

I am following the rules that you have provided and as far as I understood these were:
a) If CTRP information exists (identified by the existence of the CTRPInfo
block) do not list the CTGov overall information but instead list the CTRP
overall information.
b) If CTRP information exists repeat the CTRPOverallOfficial person in the
OverallContact block and add Phone and/or Email information if it exists.

You could have a look at CDR573235 on MAHLER for sample output.

BZDATETIME::2012-05-03 10:51:57
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::30

(In reply to comment #29)
> (In reply to comment #28)
> > Are you creating the OverallContact when all data for the CTRPOverallOfficial
> > information exist?
>
> I am following the rules that you have provided and as far as I understood
> these were:
> a) If CTRP information exists (identified by the existence of the CTRPInfo
> block) do not list the CTGov overall information but instead list the CTRP
> overall information.
> b) If CTRP information exists repeat the CTRPOverallOfficial person in the
> OverallContact block and add Phone and/or Email information if it exists.
>
> You could have a look at CDR573235 on MAHLER for sample output.

Yes. You've got it working correctly according to the rule. I retrieved pub preview and checked it out. It displays correctly.

BZDATETIME::2012-05-21 14:06:23
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::31

I've modified the vendor filter based on our discussion with Lakshmi.
I am now removing Location information if CTRPLocation information exists and I'm ignoring CTRPOverallOfficial information and only pick up OverallOfficial information (just like before).

The following filter has been updated:
CDR0000349693.xml - Vendor Filter: CTGovProtocol - R10402

This is ready for review on FRANCK and MAHLER

BZDATETIME::2012-05-30 14:28:56
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::32

(In reply to comment #31)
> I've modified the vendor filter based on our discussion with Lakshmi.
> I am now removing Location information if CTRPLocation information exists and
> I'm ignoring CTRPOverallOfficial information and only pick up OverallOfficial
> information (just like before).
>
> The following filter has been updated:
> CDR0000349693.xml - Vendor Filter: CTGovProtocol - R10402
>
> This is ready for review on FRANCK and MAHLER

Verified on Mahler. Will do more testing on Franck as we test more trials.

BZDATETIME::2012-07-26 11:00:32
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::33

(In reply to comment #32)
> (In reply to comment #31)
> > I've modified the vendor filter based on our discussion with Lakshmi.
> > I am now removing Location information if CTRPLocation information exists and
> > I'm ignoring CTRPOverallOfficial information and only pick up OverallOfficial
> > information (just like before).
> >
> > The following filter has been updated:
> > CDR0000349693.xml - Vendor Filter: CTGovProtocol - R10402
> >
> > This is ready for review on FRANCK and MAHLER
>
> Verified on Mahler. Will do more testing on Franck as we test more trials.

It's okay to promote this to Bach.

BZDATETIME::2012-07-26 11:10:05
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::34

(In reply to comment #33)
> It's okay to promote this to Bach.

I will move this to production next week. Given the fact that we've already moved several summary changes to production I don't want to add another variable to add to tomorrows mega publishing job.

BZDATETIME::2012-09-04 11:43:11
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::35

The following trials are read for test publishing on Franck. Some of them are Completed protocols so I am guessing they might not work but we have included 2 Active trials that should work.

597649
582632
507414
595623
486425

BZDATETIME::2012-09-05 13:08:55
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::36

The documents have been published without error on FRANCK.
William will use the PP report to QC the result.

BZDATETIME::2012-09-05 13:27:27
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::37

Pub preview just lists the names of the Organizations. The names of the PI(s), phone numbers and email addresses are all missing.

BZDATETIME::2012-09-05 14:32:26
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::38

There was a template missing to extract the contact information. I've added this template and you will now see the person information.

The updated filter is
CDR349693.xml - Vendor Filter: CTGovProtocol

Please have a look on FRANCK.

BZDATETIME::2012-09-05 14:53:13
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::39

(In reply to comment #38)
> There was a template missing to extract the contact information. I've added
> this template and you will now see the person information.
>
> The updated filter is
> CDR349693.xml - Vendor Filter: CTGovProtocol
>
> Please have a look on FRANCK.

Verified. They are displaying correctly now. Thanks!
I also noticed that sites with a status of Withdrawn are being displayed. For example :
Huntsman Cancer Institute at University of Utah in CDR0000582632 is displaying even though it has a site status of "Withdrawn". It looks like only sites with "Active" status should be displayed.

BZDATETIME::2012-09-05 15:17:39
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::40

I've modified the Status issue.

Please remember that when you are testing these filter changes you must also test with non-CTRP protocols to ensure that I'm not breaking anything for our CTGovProtocols.

The change is ready for review on FRANCK.

BZDATETIME::2012-09-06 11:54:41
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::41

(In reply to comment #40)
> I've modified the Status issue.
>
The status problem is fixed. Thanks.

> Please remember that when you are testing these filter changes you must also
> test with non-CTRP protocols to ensure that I'm not breaking anything for our
> CTGovProtocols.
>
> The change is ready for review on FRANCK.

I see that in some cases, we do have the emails of the Investigators but they are not being displayed. For example. Trial - CDR582632 Under Facility : McFarland Clinic, Investigator: Merchant, Joseph has email address:jjmerchant@mcfarlandclinic.com but that is not displayed in pub preview.

BZDATETIME::2012-09-06 12:01:10
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::42

(In reply to comment #41)
>
>
> I see that in some cases, we do have the emails of the Investigators but they
> are not being displayed. For example. Trial - CDR582632 Under Facility :
> McFarland Clinic, Investigator: Merchant, Joseph has email
> address:jjmerchant@mcfarlandclinic.com but that is not displayed in pub
> preview.

It looks like the emails under the Contact is being displayed and not the emails under the Investigator. Are you also displaying only the phone numbers under the Contact only? It's hard to tell because in most cases, the information is the same for both the Contact and the Investigator.

BZDATETIME::2012-09-06 15:08:05
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::43

(In reply to comment #42)
> (In reply to comment #41)
> >
> >
> > I see that in some cases, we do have the emails of the Investigators but they
> > are not being displayed. For example. Trial - CDR582632 Under Facility :
> > McFarland Clinic, Investigator: Merchant, Joseph has email
> > address:jjmerchant@mcfarlandclinic.com but that is not displayed in pub
> > preview.
>
> It looks like the emails under the Contact is being displayed and not the
> emails under the Investigator. Are you also displaying only the phone numbers
> under the Contact only? It's hard to tell because in most cases, the
> information is the same for both the Contact and the Investigator.

As we discussed in the meeting this afternoon, if you can confirm that only the "Contact" (and not the Investigator) information is showing, then I think we will be good to go. Also, will the Investigator information be displayed if there is no contact? Lastly, please check to see that when the CTRP data is present, the CTGov sites won't display.

BZDATETIME::2012-09-07 10:10:52
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::44

Is it possible to address these issues today? We are ready to promote all the CTRP changes.

BZDATETIME::2012-09-07 14:07:36
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::45

(In reply to comment #44)
> Is it possible to address these issues today? We are ready to promote all the
> CTRP changes.

Unfortunately I'm on vacation today and my internet here in Williamsburg isn't fast enough to get any work done. I'll finish up on Monday.

BZDATETIME::2012-09-07 14:16:31
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::46

(In reply to comment #45)
> (In reply to comment #44)
> > Is it possible to address these issues today? We are ready to promote all the
> > CTRP changes.
> Unfortunately I'm on vacation today and my internet here in Williamsburg isn't
> fast enough to get any work done. I'll finish up on Monday.

I didn't realize you were on vacation. Please enjoy your vacation. Monday is fine.

BZDATETIME::2012-09-11 17:01:58
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::47

(In reply to comment #43)
> As we discussed in the meeting this afternoon, if you can confirm that
> only the "Contact" (and not the Investigator) information is showing,
> then I think we will be good to go.

Confirmed! Only the CTRPContact information is displayed. The CTRPInvestigator information is ignored by the filters.

> Also, will the Investigator information be displayed if
> there is no contact?

See above - the CTRPInvestigator information is completely ignored. If there is no contact information we don't display any contact information.

> Lastly, please check to see that when the CTRP data is
> present, the CTGov sites won't display.

Confirmed! If the CTRPLocation element exists, all existing Location blocks will be ignored.

BZDATETIME::2012-09-11 17:08:22
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::48

(In reply to comment #41)
> I see that in some cases, we do have the emails of the Investigators but they
> are not being displayed.

This is correct. If the email exists as part of the CTRPInvestigator block the information is ignored even if the email does not exist as part of the CTRPContact block.

BZDATETIME::2012-09-11 17:10:27
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::49

(In reply to comment #42)
> It looks like the emails under the Contact is being displayed and not the
> emails under the Investigator.

That is correct.

> Are you also displaying only the phone numbers under the Contact only?

Yes, none of the CTRPInvestigator information is included in the output.

BZDATETIME::2012-09-12 13:34:35
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::50

It looks like Collaborators are not being displayed for CTRP trials. Sample documents:
CDR0000582632 - CTRP Trial
CDR0000437858 - Non-CTRP Trial

BZDATETIME::2012-09-12 13:38:34
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::51

This is on MAHLER, right?

BZDATETIME::2012-09-12 13:48:47
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::52

(In reply to comment #51)
> This is on MAHLER, right?

No. On Franck.

BZDATETIME::2012-09-12 19:03:33
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::53

(In reply to comment #50)
> It looks like Collaborators are not being displayed for CTRP trials. Sample
> documents:
> CDR0000582632 - CTRP Trial
> CDR0000437858 - Non-CTRP Trial

The second document is an InScopeProtocol but the Collaborators are now shown for the first protocol.

Please check on FRANCK.

BZDATETIME::2012-09-13 10:58:36
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::54

(In reply to comment #53)
> (In reply to comment #50)
> > It looks like Collaborators are not being displayed for CTRP trials. Sample
> > documents:
> > CDR0000582632 - CTRP Trial
> > CDR0000437858 - Non-CTRP Trial
>
> The second document is an InScopeProtocol but the Collaborators are now shown
> for the first protocol.
>
> Please check on FRANCK.

Verified. Please promote to Bach.

BZDATETIME::2012-09-14 17:22:13
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::55

I copied the filter to FRANCK and ran a diff report (before/after). There were many documents that now are listing Collaborator information and two document including additional contact information. Those two documents where CDR597649
and CDR582632 (see comment 35) so I guess these differences are expected.
No other differences have been found and I copied the updated filter to BACH:
CDR349693.xml - Vendor Filter: CTGovProtocol - R10620

We will verify after today's publishing job.

BZDATETIME::2012-09-18 17:34:00
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::56

Publishing ran OK. Many of our CTGovProtocols are now displaying the optional 'type' attribute for the Collaborator element.

BZDATETIME::2012-10-05 10:06:58
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::57

At least one new 'CTRP protocol' was successfully published to Cancer.gov and the CTRP site information display correctly.
Closing issue. Thank you!