zib-TNMTumorClassification-Germany #382
Conversation
| </coding> | ||
| </patternCodeableConcept> | ||
| </element> | ||
| <element id="Observation.component:m_NumberOfPrimaryTumors"> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps we should have a discussion whether these slices should all start with a character in lower case (in accordance with the profiling guidelines), or should reflect the capital/lower letter as used in the zib concept. For most of these it doesn't really matter, but it might be a bit confusing for M_DistantMetastasis and m_NumberOfPrimaryTumors.
| <comment value="TNMVersion" /> | ||
| </mapping> | ||
| </element> | ||
| <element id="Observation.hasMember"> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't really understand why the R classification has been mapped to .hasMember instead of a .component. Do we know why this is done in https://simplifier.net/packages/de.basisprofil.onkologie/1.0.0-ballot/files/657938?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we however choose to keep the R classification as a .hasMember, then we should create a separate slice (copy from zib-LaboratoryTestResult).
| </binding> | ||
| <mapping> | ||
| <identity value="zib-tnmtumorclassification-v1.0-2020EN" /> | ||
| <map value="NL-CM:4.27.18" /> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This mapping doesn't seem justified, as this .value does not correspond with the .code above (since the .code is on the level of the Abnormality as a whole). As the G_HistopathologicalGrading is part of the Abnormality container in the same way as AbnormalityNumber and Morphology, I'd expect an extension here as well (even though that is admittedly not ideal). Strictly speaking the Abnormality container in the zib has no direct value.
The alternative would be using .code 371469007 instead, but then the extensions within this component seem out of place.
| <comment value="PrognosticStage" /> | ||
| </mapping> | ||
| </element> | ||
| <element id="Observation.component:tumorLocalization"> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The TumorLocalization container is part of the Abnormality container, and should thus not be mapped to a separate .component, especially taking the cardinalities into account. For instance, for the Anatomical Location(s) belonging to the DistantMetastasis it is fine to use a separate .component, as there is only one single M_DistantMetastasis. Here you could potentially have multiple Abnormality containers, each which their own distinct set of TumorLocalization concepts. By using separate slices, how are you able to reconstruct to which Abnormality a certain TumorLocalization belongs?
| <comment value="V_VenousInvasion" /> | ||
| </mapping> | ||
| </element> | ||
| <element id="Observation.component:anatomicalStage"> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The .code is identical for both this .component and the next one, hence it is not possible to decide whether such a .component belongs to the anatomical or prognostic stage. Did you already create a ticket for the ZIB center to get more specific definition codes?
| <differential> | ||
| <element id="Extension.url"> | ||
| <path value="Extension.url" /> | ||
| <fixedUri value="http://nictiz.nl/fhir/StructureDefinition/ext-TNMTumorClassification.AbnormalityNumber" /> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This element has an incorrect value, probably due to copying the other extension.
There are a couple points where I'm still unsure.
The Dutch translation of the Anatomical site.
Are the known issues that have been found justified?