Hi Kris, That’s interesting… NAACCR has always had these three redundant fields for ICD-O-2, and you might have the same issue for the ICD-O-3 fields as well (numbers 521-523). It appears that 419 and 521 remain part of the NAACCR dictionary, but we did not include them in the tumor table. (I honestly can’t recall if that was a conscious decision.) I wonder if your institution’s tumor registry decided to populate 419 only and leave 420 and 430 blank since they’re redundant.
Could you split your morphology variable into separate histology and behavior values and use those to populate 420 and 430? The first four characters correspond to histology and the last character corresponds to behavior (separated by a “/”). Thanks! Brad From: Osinski, Kristen <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 12:03 PM To: [email protected] Cc: McDowell, Bradley D <[email protected]> Subject: [External] DROC 82 Tumor Table Mapping Hi Brad, I have found what may be a versioning mismatch in our NAACCR table vs. your Version 18 model for DROC 82. We have mappings for NAACCR Item 419 [Morph--Type&Behav ICD-O-2 ] but the new version appears to have broken Item 419 into 2 separate variables for Histology Type (420) and Behavior (430). Do you have a preference on which new variable I should map our Item 419 data to? Best, Kris (414) 416-2389 (cell) Kristen Osinski, MS Business Analyst, Biomedical Informatics Clinical & Translational Science Institute, Suite M1350 Medical College of Wisconsin 8701 Watertown Plank Road Milwaukee, WI 53226 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> (414) 805-7245 [signature_491657025]<https://ctsi.mcw.edu/>[signature_46665966]<https://ctsi.mcw.edu/about/history/partners/> Please cite the NIH CTSA Grant; 2UL1TR001436, 2TL1TR001437, 2KL2TR001438, and acknowledge support.
_______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
