CDR Tickets

• Rename “Research Results” to “Research Results and Related Resources”
  This is a filter change

• Move all links that are currently under “More About Drug X” to the “Research Results and Related Resources” section, except for the Drug Dictionary and NLM patient info links (which will also retain their descriptions)
  This is a filter change but some additional data changes may be required.

• Omit the descriptions of all links that will appear under the “Research Results and Related Resources”
  It appears that it could be handled either by a filter change or by a data change

• Delete the words “Clinical Trial Results:” from the links to those articles
  This is in the data.

I looked in the CDR, and here is what I think needs to be done to accomplish the above tasks:

1. Change title of Research Results section to Research Results and Related Resources.

2. Move all information with Drug Ref. Type=NCI to the Research Results and Related Resources section.

3. Delete Descriptions for all blocks where Drug Ref. Type = NCI. Leave other Descriptions in place.

4. Ultimately, we want to order the information under the Research Results and Related Resources section so that Fact Sheets will always be at the end, and everything else will be in chronological order with the newest information at the top (using Posted Date). It seems like the only way to do this would be to add an attribute on the Drug. Ref. Type block to indicate what type of content is being displayed. For now, I think everything should just be ordered by date.

The Research Results section was only displayed if a DrugReference with attribute Research_results existed. Since we're moving a bunch of other parts under this section I'm guessing we always want to display this section.
Is this correct?

There are a few things here that are confusing to me and I have a couple of questions like:

• Currently, we're only displaying DrugReference (DR) types with a DR description and you're saying Move all information with DRType='NCI'. Does this mean we are now also displaying DRs without a DR description or do we still only want to display the DRs without a description (but not display the description)?

• What should the sort order be for those DRType=NCI sections?

• For the section Research and Related Resources where would you want the dictionary link to be listed? Top, bottom, other?

• What distinguishes the Fact Sheets from the other DR sections?

• I have not looked at it yet but would this change affect the drug combinations?

It may be a good idea to mark-up a DIS as a sample.
You can see some of the changes already implemented on DEV.

~MBeckwit and ~volker, when you meet to talk about the DIS, please also discuss whether the links from DCS documents to DIS documents need to be entered using ExternalRef elements (as opposed to DrugSummaryRefs). As you know, using DrugSummaryRef elements in place of the ExternalRefs would likely offer more flexibility in reports (such as the ability to show DCS/DIS relationships) and they would also be less likely to need manual updating (such as when URLs change). The schema appears to allow DrugSummaryRefs already, but the template (below) has ExternalRefs and this is what has been used.

The following filter has been updated (QC_FC branch):

• CDR505580: Vendor Filter: DrugInfoSummary

This is ready for review on DEV.

Hi Volker. What would be the best way to test this? I tried to take a look at this on Dev by running a PubPreview report for bevacizamab. I encountered the Switch To error and couldn't get it to run. Is that the right way to test this?

When I looked at the document in the CDR I noticed that the attributes on some of the Drug Reference types = NCI still say "About drug" instead of "Research results". I thought we were going to change those but maybe I am remembering incorrectly.

Yes, running the PP report would be the best way to test this (unless you prefer looking at the raw XML :-) ).

I'll add a screenshot to this ticket that you could use in the meantime until your computer stops acting up.

Robin and I looked at this on Dev yesterday, and it looks fine. As we mentioned in our meeting today, we would like to be able to use the attribute on the Drug Reference Type to indicate that something is a Fact Sheet that needs to go to the bottom of the list. So I guess the order would be (using the Posted Date):
Non-Fact sheet research resources, chronologically with newest at the top.
Fact Sheets, chronologically with newest at top.

Does this make sense?

Margaret had been unable to get into XMetaL last week. In order to determine when the machine was last rebooted, issue the command

systeminfo | find "Time:"

As discussed at our last meeting, the current changes (listing Fact Sheets at the top) could go to production right now.

We want to add a Section attribute value of Fact_sheet and then sort those Fact_sheet sections to the bottom. Adding another value to the drop-down attribute list, however, is release dependent.
~MBeckwit will discuss with ~dblais if we want to go forward with the changes or wait for the next release.

I spoke with Diana and we agreed that we should go ahead and promote the changes that have been made. The attribute change will be made in the next release but no need to hold everything else up.

The modified filter has been copied to QA and STAGE:

• R14233 - CDR505580: Vendor Filter: DrugInfoSummary

Please review before we're moving the filter change to PROD.

Hi Volker. Diana had a couple of comments, and I put in additional comments in [ ] after hers:
1. The display of these on QA is not as ‘polished’ as it on PROD (particularly the brand names and FDA Approved presentation at the top), but I’m guessing this is a known difference and is OK. [MB: Is this true?]

2. HOWEVER, one thing that wasn’t done is the words “Clinical Trial Results: “ were supposed to be removed from the links that contain them. I don’t know if I overlooked this requirement when you first submitted the JIRA ticket, or if it can’t be done at this time, or whatever. But omitting those words was in the plan the DIS group agreed on. [MB: I don't have this in my notes so didn't put it in the requirements. I believe this is something that CIAT has to do manually, but wanted to see if there is a possibility of it being done by a global?]

3. Finally, I know we agreed that the Posted date would stop being displayed on cancer.gov. Is that change going to be made via another process?[MB: I think this is a Cancer.gov change. The date they get from us is the Updated Date, which comes from the DLM date.]

The display of these on QA is not as ‘polished’ as it on PROD (particularly the brand names and FDA Approved presentation at the top), but I’m guessing this is a known difference and is OK. [MB: Is this true?]

I republished all DIS on STAGE to eliminate the differences that came from the PublishPreview report and polish the ourput.

This is not really important to me, but pubpreview still doesn't look the same on QA as on PROD. I hope I attached the example...

What you're saying is that the output of PP on QA is not identical to the output of PP on PROD, right? You're not saying the output of PP on QA is not identical to Cancer.gov on PROD.

Ahh! I looked at the wrong attachment. I'll take a look at this issue. Something seems to be missing on QA.

I've submitted a ticket for the PP issue: OCECDR-4160.

HOWEVER, one thing that wasn’t done is the words “Clinical Trial Results: “ were supposed to be removed

I do not remember any discussion about this.
I think this is something that could be done as part of a filter change but it would be cleaner to update the data. The text string could be removed as a global or we could remove the string as part of the filter and have CIAT remove the text manually over time.

Finally, I know we agreed that the Posted date would stop being displayed on cancer.gov

If this is something to be changed for all document types we certainly don't want to remove the date for individual document types.

Volker, I'm not sure I understand your comment. The Drug Info summaries currently display both a Posted date and an Updated date on cancer.gov. The cancer.gov folks would prefer that only the Updated date be displayed. The Posted date looks to be the first date the summary was set to publish, so that would have to come from the CDR, right? The Updated date looks to be the most recent date the summary was published on cancer.gov. I'm not sure who/how would be the best person/way to eliminate the Posted date.

Ahh, I see. I was under the impression that both, the DateFirstPublished and the DateLastModified where displayed by all document types on Cancer.gov but it seems only the DIS are displaying both of these dates right now.

If Cancer.gov folks don't want the date displayed all they have to do is to not pick it up from the XML provided. This change, however, requires a Gatekeeper release.
We could test if the Gatekeeper code will still produce the correct HTML output if we drop the date from the XML. However, some of our PDQ partners could be using this date and start screaming if it's suddenly missing.

I was talking to Aarti to discuss how to remove the date from display on Cancer.gov. This would be a Gatekeeper and a WCMS ticket.

How do those get initiated?

The filter to update the DIS documents has been updated on QA and STAGE.
The documents are ready for review.

I hate to seem obtuse, but the last time we looked at this, we had agreed that the words "Clinical Trial Results:" would have to be deleted from the summaries manually and that the "Posted" date deletion/omission would be managed by Gatekeeper. What has changed between now and the last time we looked at these?

Also, I know what 'qa' is, but what is 'stage'?

Thanks,
Diana

Nothing has changed since the last time you looked at it except that those changes reviewed on DEV have now been "moved up" to the QA and STAGE tiers.
All we need to do is to confirm that the process of moving these changes to a different tier includes everything previously approved on the DEV server.

We have 4 tiers to work with - DEV, QA, STAGE, and PROD.
DEV - tier for development
QA - tier to test the migration of changes on
STAGE - very limited access for developers. This tier is used for CBIIT to test the migration on
PROD - You know this one.

Volker, As we discussed, the Research Results and Related Resources heading is being displayed even when there is nothing under it. Examples are Azacitadine and Doxorubicin Hydrochloride Liposome. I'm sorry that I didn't notice this in my previous QC. (I guess it's possible I didn't QC any that had this situation, but...)

Otherwise, I don't see any problems.

Thanks,
Diana

The filter has been updated to suppress display of the title Research Results and Related Resources if there is nothing to display for this section.

The filter has been updated and is ready for review on DEV and QA.

• CDR505580: Vendor Filter: DrugInfoSummary

I checked many of these and paid particular attention to those that shouldn't have a 'Related Research' section and they look good. Ready to move forward...

Thanks,
Diana

The filter has been updated on STAGE and PROD:

• R14409: CDR0000505580 (Vendor Filter: DrugInfoSummary)

Please verify on PROD and close this ticket.

One DIS has been hot-fixed and is showing the new document structure on PROD:
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/drugs/pembrolizumab

OK, I've looked on PROD at as many of these as I think I need to.They look good. Also, the hotfixed Pembrolizumab looks good live. So I guess we can move forward with this. What happens next?