Knowledge Integration for Disease Characterization: A Breast Cancer Example
With the rapid advancements in cancer research, the information that is useful for characterizing disease, staging tumors, and creating treatment and survivorship plans has been changing at a pace that creates challenges when physicians try to remain current. One example involves increasing usage of biomarkers when characterizing the pathologic prognostic stage of a breast tumor. We present our semantic technology approach to support cancer characterization and demonstrate it in our end-to-end prototype system that collects the newest breast cancer staging criteria from authoritative oncology manuals to construct an ontology for breast cancer. Using a tool we developed that utilizes this ontology, physician-facing applications can be used to quickly stage a new patient to support identifying risks, treatment options, and monitoring plans based on authoritative and best practice guidelines. Physicians can also re-stage existing patients or patient populations, allowing them to find patients whose stage has changed in a given patient cohort. As new guidelines emerge, using our proposed mechanism, which is grounded by semantic technologies for ingesting new data from staging manuals, we have created an enriched cancer staging ontology that integrates relevant data from several sources with very little human intervention.
KeywordsOntologies Knowledge integration Deductive inference Automatic extraction Cancer characterization Cancer staging guidelines
This work is partially supported by IBM Research AI through the AI Horizons Network. We thank our colleagues from IBM (Amar Das, Ching-Hua Chen) and RPI (John Erickson, Alexander New, Rebecca Cowan) who provided insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research.
- 1.Amin, M.B., et al.: The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more personalized approach to cancer staging. CA: Cancer J. Clin. 67(2), 93–99 (2017)Google Scholar
- 3.Bechhofer, S.: OWL: Web ontology language. In: Encyclopedia of Database Systems, pp. 2008–2009. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
- 4.Bird, S., Loper, E.: NLTK: the natural language toolkit. In: Proceedings of the ACL 2004 on Interactive Poster and Demonstration Sessions, p. 31. Association for Computational Linguistics (2004)Google Scholar
- 17.Kennedy, B.M., Oren, L.G., Buehring Jr., W.J.: Interactive report generation system and method of operation, uS Patent 5,937,155, 10 August 1999Google Scholar
- 18.Kim, H.L., Puymon, M.R., Qin, M., Guru, K., Mohler, J.L.: NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology™. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. (2013)Google Scholar
- 19.Klyne, G., Carroll, J.J.: Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax. Technical report. World Wide Web Consortium (2006). http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/
- 21.Massicano, F., et al.: An ontology for TNM clinical stage inference. In: ONTOBRAS (2015)Google Scholar
- 22.McCusker, J.P.: Whyis: nano-scale knowledge graph publishing, management, and analysis framework (2018). https://github.com/tetherless-world/whyis/
- 24.Mons, B., Velterop, J.: Nano-Publication in the e-science era. In: Workshop on Semantic Web Applications in Scientific Discourse (SWASD 2009), pp. 14–15 (2009)Google Scholar
- 25.Rashid, S.M., Chastain, K., Stingone, J.A., McGuinness, D.L., McCusker, J.P.: The semantic data dictionary approach to data annotation & integration. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Enabling Open Semantic Science (SemSci), pp. 47–54 (2017)Google Scholar
- 28.Sirin, E., Parsia, B.: SPARQL-DL: SPARQL Query for OWL-DL. In: OWLED, vol. 258 (2007)Google Scholar