A Process-Oriented Methodology for Modelling Cancer Treatment Trial Protocols

  • Aisan MaghsoodiEmail author
  • Anca Bucur
  • Paul de Bra
  • Norbert Graf
  • Martin Stanulla
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8903)


Cancer-patient management in the context of a multi-center treatment trial requires following a complex detailed process involving multispecialty patient treatment as well as study-related tasks, described in free-text protocol documents. We present a process-oriented approach for modelling clinical trial treatment protocols (CTTPs) to be used for enabling applications that support protocol-based care process delivery, monitoring and analysis. This modelling approach provides an intuitive visual representation of the protocol document catering for change management, intra-center and national adaptations to the master protocol, and multi-level share-ability. The methodology can be re-used in CTTPs of different cancer domains due to the similarity of the CTTPs in terms of required content.


Clinical trial protocols BPMN Process modelling Procedural knowledge representation Change management Workflows Master protocol 


  1. 1.
    Peleg, M., Tu, S., Bury, J., Ciccarese, P.: Comparing computer-interpretable guideline models: a case-study approach. J. Am. Med. Inform. 20(3), 470−476 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peleg, M.: Computer-interpretable clinical guidelines: a methodological review. J. Biomed. Inform. 46, 744–763 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gooch, P., Roudsari, A.: Computerization of workflows, guidelines, and care pathways: a review of implementation challenges for process-oriented health information systems. J. Am. Med. Inform. 18, 738–774 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Patkar, V.: From guidelines to careffiows: modelling and supporting complex clinical processes. In: ten Teije, A., Lucas, P., Miksch, S. (eds.) Computer-Based Medical Guidelines and Protocols: A Primer and Current Trends, vol. 139, pp. 44−62. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huff, S., McClurec, R.: Modeling guidelines for integration into clinical workflow. In: MEDINFO 2004: Proceedings of the 11th World Congress on Medical Informatics (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stefanelli, M.: Knowledge and process management in health care organizations. Methods Inf. Med. der. Info. Med. 43(5), 525–535 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hashemian, N., Abidi, S.: Modeling clinical workflows using business process modeling notation. In: 25th IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS) (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Müller, R., Rogge-Solti, A.: BPMN for healthcare processes. Serv. und ihre Komposition (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang, D., Peleg, M., Tu, S.W., Boxwala, A.A, Greenes, R.A, Patel, V.L., Shortliffe, E.H.: Representation primitives, process models and patient data in computer-interpretable clinical practice guidelines: a literature review of guideline representation models. Int. J. Med. Inform. 68, 59−70 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Silver, B.: BPMN Method and Style. Cody-Cassidy Press, Aptos (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chan, A.-W., Tetzlaff, J.M., Altman, D.G., Laupacis, A., Gøtzsche, P.C., Krleža-Jerić, K., Hróbjartsson, A., Mann, H., Dickersin, K., Berlin, J.A., Doré, C.J., Parulekar, W.R., Summerskill, W.S.M., Groves, T., Schulz, K.F., Sox, H.C., Rockhold, F.W., Rennie, D., Moher, D.: SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann. Intern. Med. 158, 200–207 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Minard, A.-L., Ligozat, A.-L., Ben Abacha, A., Bernhard, D., Cartoni, B., Deléger, L., Grau, B., Rosset, S., Zweigenbaum, P., Grouin, C.: Hybrid methods for improving information access in clinical documents: concept, assertion, and relation identification. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 18, 588−593 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aisan Maghsoodi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Anca Bucur
    • 2
  • Paul de Bra
    • 1
  • Norbert Graf
    • 3
  • Martin Stanulla
    • 4
  1. 1.Technical University of EindhovenEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Philips ResearchEindhovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Saarland UniversityHomburgGermany
  4. 4.University Medical Center Schleswig-HolsteinKielGermany

Personalised recommendations