Update the description of Biospecimen -> Histologic Morphology Code

[aclayton555]

Originates from: https://htanworkspace.slack.com/archives/G01H64R7MTN/p1718720266793909

Also filed in: https://sagebionetworks.jira.com/browse/HTAN-490

This issue was raised by Matt Wyczalkowski at WashU: the definition of ‘Histologic Morphology Code’ in the Biospecimen object group (and manifest) is not accurate, not as helpful as other definitions are.
The current definition reads 'Histologic Morphology Code, based on ICD-O-3. Any valid ICD-O-3 morphology code. See SEER ICD-O-3 Coding Materials and https://seer.cancer.gov/icd-o-3/sitetype.icdo3.20200629.xlsx. Examples: 80510'

@kristenanton suggests updating the definition of ‘Histologic Morphology Code’ (Biospecimen) definition to:

'The microscopic anatomy of normal and abnormal cells and tissues of the specimen as captured in the morphology codes of the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd Edition (ICD-O-3). Example - 8010/0'

This updated definition is consistent with the CDS data element (ID# 11326261), ‘ICD-O-3 Tissue Morphology.'

[aclayton555]

@jmvera255 this issue has come in mid-sprint. Is this one you could help with?

[jmvera255]

@aclayton555 Sure thing! I sounds like what is required is to update the description of the Histologic Morphology Code attribute to "The microscopic anatomy of normal and abnormal cells and tissues of the specimen as captured in the morphology codes of the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd Edition (ICD-O-3). Example - 8010/0", is that correct?

Do we want to set a validation rule to ensure consistent formatting?

[aclayton555]

That sounds right to me!

I think we can hold off on a validation rule for now unless @kristenanton thinks this would be helpful? I understand we can expect changes to morphology codes in the renewal, so I am wondering if we should wait until we have a better understanding of the scope of updates we need to perform for morphology code? Kristen, appreciate your thoughts!

[kristenanton]

The change you describe also sounds right to me, thank you Jessica.

I think a validation rule to enforce the appropriate format would be very helpful, given the variety of data we are seeing in the repository.
Considerations:

• If we add validation, will the data already submitted be affected (i.e., will the centers have to go back and correct all past data to submit new data?). I think this clean-up will be helpful, but the team should decide if this is advisable at this time in the cycle.
• If adding the validation will require heavy resources, we could forgo until we set up the validation for phase 2.

[aclayton555]

I am inclined to forgo validation until the renewal. We do not have the resources available to perform a clean-up of these data within phase 1

[jmvera255]

I am inclined to forgo validation until the renewal. We do not have the resources available to perform a clean-up of these data within phase 1

I agree