CDR Tickets

As a first step to look into Robin's question of genetics board sub-groups I said I would summarize how the information if currently prepared:

The SummaryMetaData block in the summaries contains an element "PDQBoard" for the "PDQ Cancer Genetics Board".

This PDQBoard is parent element to the child elements "BoardMember", which link to the member's Person document.

In filter CDR335242 (Denormalization Filter: Summary), we use a SQL query to select the BoardMember's name and affiliation from the BoardMember document based on the PersonID of the BoardMember link.  We create a new element "LeadReviewer" as part of the SummaryMetaData and include the board information in it's required format, i.e. "Suzanne C. O'Neill, PhD (Georgetown University)"

In the final filter CDR157 (Vendor Filter: Summary) the "LeadReviewer" elements are extracted from the SummaryMetaData and inserted into the misc. document’s Placeholder element that has the attribute "LeadReviewers". The Misc document is CDR684055 (About this PDQ Summary)

As discussed in a previous meeting, we've made some decisions (in consultation with the Genetics Board) about how we'd like this information to be displayed on Cancer.gov in the About This PDQ Summary Section. I've attached a mock-up of what we'd like to have displayed in this section. This will likely require some schema changes to capture "lead" and "contributing" working groups for the genetics summaries and filter changes to adjust what is displayed for the genetics board to be these working groups as opposed to individual Board members. Additionally, I expect we'll need to create one or two more miscellaneous documents to be added into the About This PDQ Summary section to include a new statement about working groups and a new acknowledgment statement. We can discuss this more in an upcoming meeting._Acknowledging contributors and reviewers for PDQ Genetics Summaries for 4_26_24.docx

Is this change limited to a single board or will we apply this change to all boards?

Originally, I was under the impression we wanted to list the working groups along with the members of each working group.  Looking at the sample provided, it appears that we only display the working group names.  If this is correct, I would think we're adding new elements to the Summary schema, likely as child elements to the "PDQBoard" element with a name like "WorkingGroups" and then list the working groups as children (WorkingGroupName).  The WorkingGroupName element will have an attribute "Lead=Yes".

<SummaryMetaData>
...<PDQBoard>

...
<BoardMember cdr:ref="CDR0000791232">Lee, Valerie</BoardMember>
<LeadReviewer lname="Lee">Valerie Lee, MD (Johns Hopkins University)</LeadReviewer>
<BoardMember cdr:ref="CDR0000812405">Pappas, Leon</BoardMember>
<LeadReviewer lname="Pappas">Leon Pappas, MD, PhD (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute)</LeadReviewer>
</PDQBoard>
<WorkingGroups>
{{   <WorkingGroupName Lead="yes">Prostate Cancer working group</WorkingGroupName>}}
{{   <WorkingGroupName>Skin Cancer working group</WorkingGroupName>}}
{{   <WorkingGroupName>Pancreatic Cancer working group</WorkingGroupName>}}
</WorkingGroups>{{}}
<MainTopics>
<Term cdr:ref="CDR0000038736">small intestine cancer</Term>
</MainTopics>{{}}{}...{}{}</SummaryMetaData>{}{{  }}

I still will need to inspect the filters in more detail but with a structure like this it should be fairly straight forward to make those proposed changes.

In the misc. document we're using a placeholder called [LeadReviewer] to prepare the list of reviewers in the section.  This is done using a specific filter template.  For our new approach we want to create a new placeholder element called WorkingGroups (or similar) to trigger the modified template to insert our list of working groups.

For my information: The misc document is CDR684055 (About this PDQ Summary).

Here are some proposed summary schema changes (~volker , please let me know if you have other ideas):

Please add "WorkingGroups" as a child element to "PDQBoard"

Please add "WorkingGroupName" as a child element to "WorkingGroups"

Please add an attribute to "WorkingGroupName" – the attribute name is "Lead" with a possible value of "Yes"

We will want a set of defined values for the WorkingGroupName. Let me check with Kavitha on those and provide them in a subsequent comment.

(Working groups that don't have the "Lead" attribute would effectively be "contributing" working groups)

I assume (from the name of the wrapper) that the WorkingGroupName children should allow multiple occurrences. I'll hold off until Volker and Kavitha have had a chance to weigh in on the requirements.

Yes, that's correct. It should allow multiple occurrences. Thank you!

Here are the working group name values we'd like to use to populate the WorkingGroupName element.

• Genetics of Breast and Gynecologic Cancers

• Genetics of Gastrointestinal Cancers

• Genetics of Hematologic Malignancies

• Genetics of Endocrine Neoplasias

• Genetics of Kidney Cancer

• Genetics of Pediatric Cancers

• Genetics of Prostate Cancer

• Genetics of Skin Cancer

• Genetic Counseling and Psychosocial Aspects of Hereditary Cancer

Schema enhancements installed on CDR DEV.

https://github.com/NCIOCPL/cdr-server/commit/7c90237

Is it possible to have more than one "Lead" working group for a summary?

I've made some changes to the filters and to the misc. document so that we have something to talk about.  At the moment I'm displaying both, the individual members and the working groups.  We need to talk about which summaries would receive one or the other and how to organize the misc. document based on this decision.

My understanding is that only the genetics summaries will include the working groups but we want to keep the current display for all other summaries.  This would require a separate misc document which replaces the placeholder [LeadReviewers] with the placeholder [WorkingGroups].

I met with Kavitha and Jessica this week to go over the process of updating summaries with the new element and maintaining the text of the Misc. Doc. Kavitha also spent time testing and reviewing the process on her own.  The new features worked well and we were able to confirm the changes. The only question Kavitha had is quoted below:

• "Will we need a separate miscellaneous document for Genetics summaries or is there another way to have different wording and working groups be listed instead of lead reviewers? "

From the status meeting: It would be helpful to have a few examples of exactly what we'd like to appear in the About section (including text about working groups, lead/contributing WGs, link to roster, and acknowledgment text). We should include at least one page that's unaffected by the changes (maybe a Peds summary without acknowledgment text), a couple of genetics examples (some with lead/contributing WGs and at least one with acknowledgment text) and a Peds example with acknowledgment text.

I met with Kavitha, Crystal and Jess yesterday to get clarification on the requirements for the ticket. I have attached the Word document Kavitha provided that outlines the use cases and exception for this change. We also talked about the placement of the proposed acknowledgment text and the preference was for the text to go in the About This PDQ Summary section, and under the Reviewers and Updates subsection, specifically before the last paragraph in the section of the Reviewers and Updates subsection.  CDR Genetics Summaries Scenarios for About This Summary 11_13_24.docx