Pilot study to evaluate automated laboratory data transfer into Medidata Rave for NCI-supported pediatric cooperative group trials in the Pediatric Early Phase Clinical Trials Network (PEP-CTN) and Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium (PBTC).

e23017 Background: Electronic data capture (EDC) has the potential to improve data accuracy and efficiency. As an initial step toward improvement in the accuracy and completeness of data acquisition for clinical trials, PEP-CTN and PBTC conducted a pilot project to assess the feasibility of automated transfer of laboratory data from participating institutions’ electronic health records to the NCI Medidata Rave EDC that is housed within each consortium’s Uniform Resource Locator (URL). The pilot aimed to assess feasibility of automated laboratory data extraction and transfer and to evaluate discrepancies between laboratory data obtained retrospectively through automated extraction and data manually ascertained during the original conduct of the study. Methods: Data from patients treated on 7 completed PEP-CTN or PBTC trials at 7 sites were included. Each consortium created a Rave EDC study to receive data. Sites used the ExtractEHR R package or local methods to map and extract laboratory data for designated patients. Post-extraction data were uploaded via a file transfer protocol (FTP) periodically polled by the Rave Batch Uploader (BU) that uploaded data into Rave EDC. After successful upload, extracted data (EHR) were compared to laboratory data that had been manually reported when patients were enrolled on the trials (MANUAL) and discrepancies were identified. Discrepancy types were categorized and 2 sites reviewed discrepancies at their sites to identify reasons. Results: Preparation and support for automated extraction and upload required significant central operations and local site effort. All sites successfully extracted specified laboratory data and had at least one complete upload via BU to Rave EDC. There were more laboratory data in the EHR datasets than MANUAL datasets across most sites. These results were due to multiple EHR results on a given day or from additional days in the study window than specified in MANUAL. Sites verified that laboratory data in MANUAL and not EHR were stored in un-extractable formats (e.g. PDFs) or outside laboratories. Most discrepant results in both EHR and MANUAL were mismatched values or units. Conclusions: This pilot demonstrated the feasibility of implementing automated laboratory data extraction and transfer in the cooperative group setting. Automated data transfer requires significant central operational support as well as detailed protocols, data specifications, and case report forms and engagement of site technical teams to be successful, but also permits collection of more comprehensive data with reduced manual data entry. Clinical trial information: NCT05020951 .