Method and System for Evaluating the Efficacy of TACE for Liver Cancer Based on Patient-Reported Outcomes

Abstract

This application relates to the technical field of data management and analysis, and particularly to a method and system for evaluating the efficacy of liver cancer TACE based on patient-reported outcomes. Obtain a request set monitoring request transmitted by an evaluation server, where the request set monitoring request is configured with a first request set tag; according to the first request set tag, obtain the associated request report and the evaluation record report corresponding to the request report; perform a credibility evaluation on the request report based on the evaluation record report to obtain a first credibility evaluation record; if it is determined that the request report is credible through the first credibility evaluation record, then execute the request time point according to the monitoring priority and perioperative key points at the request time point to complete the target patient evaluation project. The present invention can solve the problem of difficult evaluation of the efficacy of liver cancer TACE, promote the development of patients' self-efficacy monitoring and efficacy management work in clinical practice, and help improve the prognosis and quality of life of patients.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present application relates to the technical field of data management and analysis, and in particular to a method and system for evaluating the efficacy of TACE for liver cancer based on patient-reported outcomes. Background Art

[0002] The treatment options for liver cancer mainly include liver resection, liver transplantation, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE), radiofrequency ablation, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy. Among them, liver resection is the preferred method for treating early liver cancer, which can improve the survival rate of patients to a certain extent. However, due to the hidden early onset of liver cancer, high degree of deterioration and rapid progression of the disease, 80% of liver cancer patients in my country are unable to undergo surgical resection when they seek medical treatment. TACE blocks the blood supply to the tumor on the one hand, and accumulates high concentrations of chemotherapy drugs in the local tumor at the same time, which has a maximum killing effect on tumor cells. It is recognized as the primary treatment for unresectable liver cancer, and it is also an important way of downstaging treatment before liver resection and postoperative adjuvant treatment. TACE is an important means for liver cancer patients to control disease progression, relieve symptoms and prolong survival.

[0003] Liver cancer patients will experience a variety of symptom burdens due to the influence of the disease. For example, if the tumor compresses the liver capsule before surgery, the patient will experience pain in the right upper abdomen or liver area. Cirrhosis can easily lead to portal hypertension in patients, causing gastrointestinal dysfunction and symptoms such as nausea, loss of appetite, and abdominal distension. If the malignant tumor causes nutritional absorption disorders and metabolic disorders, the patient will become emaciated and weak.

[0004] TACE is the first choice for the treatment of unresectable liver cancer. Patients with liver cancer have a heavy symptom burden and great impact after TACE treatment. How to provide an effective reference for the formulation of clinical diagnosis and treatment plans from the patient's subjective perspective, thereby improving the patient's prognosis and quality of life, is a technical problem that needs to be solved urgently in this field. Summary of the invention

[0005] To achieve the above objectives, this application provides the following technical solutions:

[0006] According to the first aspect of the present invention, the present invention claims protection for a method for evaluating the efficacy of TACE for liver cancer based on patient-reported outcomes, comprising:

[0007] Obtaining a request set monitoring request transmitted by an evaluation server, wherein the request set monitoring request is configured with a first request set tag;

[0008] Obtain the associated request report and the evaluation record report corresponding to the request report according to the first request set tag. Among them, the request time point collected for the target patient evaluation item, as well as the monitoring priority and perioperative key points at the request time point, are recorded in the request report. Divide the monitoring cycle length of the request report according to the multi-source TACE medical data in the request report, and perform a secondary evaluation on the request report according to the monitoring cycle length;

[0009] Conduct a credibility evaluation on the request report according to the evaluation record report to obtain the first credibility evaluation record;

[0010] If it is determined that the request report is credible through the first credibility evaluation record, then execute the request time point according to the monitoring priority and perioperative key points at the request time point to complete the target patient evaluation item.

[0011] Further, the conducting a credibility evaluation on the request report according to the evaluation record report to obtain the first credibility evaluation record includes:

[0012] Analyze the evaluation records corresponding to the request report respectively using a variety of preset evaluation methods;

[0013] Compare the evaluation records analyzed by the variety of preset evaluation methods with the evaluation records in the evaluation record report;

[0014] If the evaluation records analyzed by the variety of preset evaluation methods are all consistent with the evaluation records in the evaluation record report, then determine that the request report is credible;

[0015] If the evaluation record analyzed by any one of the variety of preset evaluation methods is inconsistent with the evaluation record in the evaluation record report, then determine that the request report is not credible.

[0016] Further, the method further includes:

[0017] If it is determined that the request report is not credible through the first credibility evaluation record, then determine whether there is a secondary evaluation request report for the request report;

[0018] If there is a secondary evaluation request report, then obtain the secondary evaluation request report corresponding to the request report and the secondary evaluation record report corresponding to the secondary evaluation request report;

[0019] Analyze the secondary evaluation records corresponding to the secondary evaluation request report respectively using a variety of preset evaluation methods;

[0020] Compare the secondary evaluation records analyzed by the multiple preset evaluation methods with the secondary evaluation records in the secondary evaluation record report;

[0021] If the secondary evaluation records analyzed by the multiple preset evaluation methods are all consistent with the secondary evaluation records in the secondary evaluation record report, determine that the secondary evaluation request report is credible;

[0022] Execute the request time point in the secondary evaluation request report to complete the target patient evaluation project.

[0023] Further, before obtaining the request set monitoring request transmitted by the evaluation server, the method further includes:

[0024] Obtain the request set acquisition request transmitted by the evaluation server, where the request set acquisition request is configured with a second request set label and the number of acquisition requests;

[0025] According to the request set acquisition request, obtain the request time points transmitted by the evaluation server one by one;

[0026] Determine whether the number of the request time points exceeds the number of acquisition requests;

[0027] If the number of the request time points exceeds the number of acquisition requests, output the request report corresponding to the second request set label, collect and save the request time points in the request report, and record the monitoring priority and perioperative key points of the request time points in the request report;

[0028] Analyze the evaluation records of the request report by using multiple preset evaluation methods to output the evaluation record report corresponding to the request report.

[0029] Further, the method further includes:

[0030] Determine the monitoring cycle length of the collected request report according to the target patient evaluation project;

[0031] Determine the number of secondary evaluations corresponding to the request report according to the monitoring cycle length;

[0032] Perform a secondary evaluation on the request report according to the number of secondary evaluations to obtain at least one secondary evaluation request report corresponding to the request report, and output the secondary evaluation record report corresponding to the at least one secondary evaluation request report.

[0033] Further, before obtaining the request set monitoring request transmitted by the evaluation server, the method further includes:

[0034] In response to a request to report an update package annotation request, obtain a request report update package and an update package evaluation record report;

[0035] Evaluate the credibility of the request report update package according to the update package evaluation record report to obtain a second credibility evaluation record;

[0036] If it is determined through the second credibility evaluation record that the request report update package has been obtained credibly, feedback evaluation success information to the evaluation server;

[0037] Obtain the update request transmitted by the evaluation server according to the evaluation success information, and copy the request report corresponding to the request report update package to the associated location according to the update request.

[0038] Further, the method further includes:

[0039] Determine whether a platform request transmitted by the evaluation server is obtained within a preset duration after a secondary operation or first aid;

[0040] If the platform request is not obtained within the preset duration, obtain a default request report and a default evaluation record report;

[0041] Evaluate the credibility of the default request report according to the default evaluation record report to obtain a third credibility evaluation record;

[0042] If it is determined through the third credibility evaluation record that the default request report is credible, execute the request time point in the default request report.

[0043] According to the second aspect of the present invention, the present invention requests to protect a liver cancer TACE efficacy evaluation system based on patient-reported outcomes, including:

[0044] A first acquisition module, configured to acquire a request set monitoring request transmitted by an evaluation server, where the request set monitoring request is configured with a first request set label;

[0045] A second acquisition module, configured to acquire an associated request report and an evaluation record report corresponding to the request report according to the first request set label, where the request report records a request time point collected for an evaluation item of a target patient, as well as a monitoring priority and a perioperative key point at the request time point, divide the monitoring cycle length of the request report according to the multi-source TACE medical data of the request report, and perform a secondary evaluation on the request report according to the monitoring cycle length;

[0046] An evaluation module, configured to evaluate the credibility of the request report according to the evaluation record report to obtain a first credibility evaluation record;

[0047] An execution module, configured to, if it is determined that the request report is credible based on the first credibility evaluation record, execute the request time point according to the monitoring priority and perioperative key points at the request time point to complete the target patient evaluation project;

[0048] The liver cancer TACE efficacy evaluation system based on patient-reported outcomes is used to execute the liver cancer TACE efficacy evaluation method based on patient-reported outcomes.

[0049] This application relates to the technical field of data management and analysis, and particularly relates to a liver cancer TACE efficacy evaluation method and system based on patient-reported outcomes. It obtains a request set monitoring request transmitted by an evaluation server, and the request set monitoring request is configured with a first request set tag; according to the first request set tag, it obtains an associated request report and an evaluation record report corresponding to the request report; it conducts a credibility evaluation on the request report based on the evaluation record report to obtain a first credibility evaluation record; if it is determined that the request report is credible through the first credibility evaluation record, it executes the request time point according to the monitoring priority and perioperative key points at the request time point to complete the target patient evaluation project. The present invention can solve the problem of difficult evaluation of liver cancer TACE efficacy, promote the development of patients' self-efficacy monitoring and efficacy management work in clinical practice, and contribute to improving the prognosis and quality of life of patients. Description of the Drawings

[0050] Figure 1 It is a working flowchart of the liver cancer TACE efficacy evaluation method based on patient-reported outcomes requested to be protected by the embodiments of this application;

[0051] Figure 2 It is a second working flowchart of the liver cancer TACE efficacy evaluation method based on patient-reported outcomes requested to be protected by the embodiments of this application;

[0052] Figure 3 It is a third working flowchart of the liver cancer TACE efficacy evaluation method based on patient-reported outcomes requested to be protected by the embodiments of this application;

[0053] Figure 4 It is a fourth working flowchart of the liver cancer TACE efficacy evaluation method based on patient-reported outcomes requested to be protected by the embodiments of this application;

[0054] Figure 5 It is a structural module diagram of the liver cancer TACE efficacy evaluation system based on patient-reported outcomes requested to be protected by the embodiments of this application;

[0055] Markings in the figure: 101 - First acquisition module, 102 - Second acquisition module, 103 - Evaluation module, 104 - Execution module. Detailed Embodiments

[0056] The following will clearly and reliably describe the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present application with reference to the accompanying drawings in the embodiments of the present application. Obviously, the described embodiments are only a part of the embodiments of the present application, rather than all the embodiments. All other embodiments obtained by those of ordinary skill in the art based on the embodiments of the present application without creative efforts shall fall within the protection scope of the present application.

[0057] The terms "first", "second", and "third" in the present application are only used for descriptive purposes, and cannot be understood as indicating or implying relative importance or implicitly specifying the quantity of the indicated technical features. Thus, the features defined with "first", "second", and "third" may explicitly or implicitly include at least one of such features. In the description of the present application, the meaning of "a plurality" is at least two, such as two, three, etc., unless otherwise specifically defined. All directional indications (such as up, down, left, right, front, back...) in the embodiments of the present application are only used to explain the relative positional relationship and movement conditions between components in a specific posture (as shown in the accompanying drawings). If the specific posture changes, the directional indications will also change accordingly. In addition, the terms "include" and "have" and any variations thereof are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion. For example, a process, method, system, product, or device that includes a series of steps S or modules is not limited to the listed steps S or modules, but may optionally further include steps S or modules not listed, or may optionally further include other steps S or modules inherent to these processes, methods, products, or devices.

[0058] Referring to "embodiments" herein means that the specific features, structures, or characteristics described in connection with the embodiments may be included in at least one embodiment of the present application. The phrase appears in various places in the specification and does not necessarily refer to the same embodiment, nor is it an independent or alternative embodiment mutually exclusive with other embodiments. Those skilled in the art will explicitly and implicitly understand that the embodiments described herein may be combined with other embodiments.

[0059] The following will detail the present application with reference to the accompanying drawings and in combination with embodiments. It should be noted that, without conflict, the embodiments in the present application and the features in the embodiments may be combined with each other.

[0060] The prior art has greatly increased the treatment difficulty of medical effect evaluation and the communication cost with the user side, and at the same time led to low treatment efficiency.

[0061] TACE is a minimally invasive treatment with a wide range of indications and relatively safe. However, during the treatment process, embolization of tumor arteries and local high-concentration chemotherapy lead to an increased symptom burden after surgery. Post-Embolization Syndrome (PES) is one of the most common and characteristic complications after TACE treatment. PES usually occurs within 24 to 72 hours after TACE, and its characteristic symptoms include fever, nausea or vomiting, abdominal pain, and abnormal liver function, etc. According to previous studies, the symptoms of PES may last for up to 2 weeks. The reported incidence of PES after TACE in various literatures varies greatly, ranging from 60% to 80%.

[0062] There is no unified conclusion on the pathogenesis of PES. At present, it is considered that it may be related to the release of inflammatory mediators from tumor ischemia or necrotic tissues caused by the surgery and the systemic effects caused by chemotherapy drugs. PES is considered a self-limiting disease. When the symptoms are mild, it usually resolves on its own. However, in the case of moderate to severe symptoms without timely treatment, it may have an adverse impact on the prognosis and quality of life of patients.

[0063] Research reports that the adverse experience of the first TACE will affect the patient's confidence in the treatment, reduce the patient's quality of life and compliance, and have a negative impact on the patient's subsequent treatment. In addition, severe PES may also lead to an extended hospital stay, increased medical costs, and increased psychological, physical, and economic burdens on patients. A prospective study found that the median survival time of liver cancer patients with PES was significantly lower than that of patients without PES (6.8 months vs. 12 months).

[0064] Due to multiple feeding arteries of liver malignancies and the formation of rich collateral circulation, etc., the feeding arteries of tumors cannot be completely embolized at one time. Therefore, liver cancer patients need multiple sequential treatments to control tumor progression when implementing TACE. Therefore, how to reduce the symptom burden after TACE treatment, improve the treatment effect and tolerance, and improve the quality of life of patients is crucial in the symptom management of liver cancer patients after TACE.

[0065] To solve the above problems, the embodiments of the present invention provide a method for evaluating the efficacy of liver cancer TACE based on patient-reported outcomes, as Figure 1 shown, the method includes:

[0066] Step S10, obtaining a request set monitoring request transmitted by an evaluation server.

[0067] Wherein, the request set monitoring request is configured with a first request set tag, and the request set tag is used to point to a request report, and the request report is stored inside the medical effect evaluation.

[0068] In an embodiment of the present invention, in order to reduce the difficulty of medical effect evaluation and treatment and reduce the communication cost with the user side, the request time points involved in the patient evaluation items frequently performed in medical effect evaluation, as well as the monitoring priorities and perioperative key points of the request time points, are saved in a specified request report, thereby reducing the difficulty of medical effect evaluation and treatment and the communication cost with the user side, and improving the treatment efficiency and reliability of medical effect evaluation.

[0069] After the implementation of the TACE treatment method, if the medical effect evaluation is successfully executed, the medical effect evaluation will feedback the successful execution status information to the patient's family terminal through the evaluation server. After the patient's family terminal obtains the successful execution status information of the medical effect evaluation, if it is necessary to perform treatment on the medical effect evaluation, it will transmit a request set monitoring request to the evaluation server, and the evaluation server will forward the request set monitoring request to the medical effect evaluation. The request set monitoring request includes a first request set tag, which is used to point to the collected request report. The request report records the request time points involved in the patient evaluation items associated with the execution of the medical effect evaluation, as well as the monitoring priorities and perioperative key points of the request time points.

[0070] Step S20: Obtain the associated request report and the evaluation record report corresponding to the request report according to the first request set tag.

[0071] Among them, the request report records the request time points collected for the target patient evaluation items, as well as the monitoring priorities and perioperative key points of the request time points. In addition, the evaluation record report records the evaluation values corresponding to the request report, which are saved inside the medical effect evaluation together with the request report. At the same time, the monitoring cycle length of the request report can be divided according to the multi-source TACE medical data of the request report, and the request report can be re-evaluated according to the monitoring cycle length. The multi-source TACE medical data includes the types of patient evaluation items, safety risks, and time sensitivity of the request report, etc.

[0072] Among them, in this embodiment, the perioperative key points at least include: pre-operation (T0), operation day (T1), one day after operation (T2), two days after operation (T3), three days after operation (T4), one week after operation (T5), two weeks after operation (T6), three weeks after operation (T7), one month after operation (T8), two months after operation (T9), three months after operation (T10).

[0073] For the embodiment of the present invention, after the medical effect evaluation obtains the request set monitoring request transmitted by the evaluation server, it determines whether there is an associated request report to be saved according to the first request set tag configured in the request set monitoring request. If there is an associated request report to be saved, it further conducts a credibility evaluation on the request report.

[0074] Step S30: Perform a credibility assessment on the request report based on the evaluation record report to obtain a first credibility assessment record.

[0075] For the embodiments of the present invention, when performing a credibility assessment on the request report, a preset evaluation method can be used to analyze the evaluation record of the request report to obtain the evaluation record corresponding to the request report. It should be noted that the preset evaluation method adopted in the embodiments of the present invention is not limited to the above-listed evaluation methods and can also be other evaluation methods.

[0076] After analyzing the evaluation record corresponding to the request report, compare the analyzed evaluation record with the evaluation record in the evaluation record report. If the evaluation records of the two are the same, it indicates that the request report is credible; if the evaluation records of the two are different, it indicates that the request report is not credible, and a bit jump may have occurred at the request time point in the request report.

[0077] It should be noted that the evaluation method used by the embodiments of the present invention to analyze the evaluation record corresponding to the request report needs to be the same as the evaluation method used in the evaluation record report.

[0078] Furthermore, in order to improve the accuracy of the credibility assessment of the request report and ensure the accuracy of the credibility assessment record of the request report, the embodiments of the present invention can also use multiple preset evaluation methods to perform a credibility assessment on the request report. For this process, the method includes: using multiple preset evaluation methods to analyze the evaluation records corresponding to the request report respectively; comparing the evaluation records analyzed by the multiple preset evaluation methods with the evaluation records in the evaluation record report; if the evaluation records analyzed by the multiple preset evaluation methods are all the same as the evaluation records in the evaluation record report, it is determined that the request report is credible; if the evaluation record analyzed by any one of the multiple preset evaluation methods is different from the evaluation record in the evaluation record report, it is determined that the request report is not credible.

[0079] Among them, the evaluation record report stores the evaluation records analyzed by multiple preset evaluation methods.

[0080] For the embodiments of the present invention, in order to ensure the accuracy of the credibility assessment record of the request report, when the evaluation records analyzed by multiple preset evaluation methods for the request report are all the same as the evaluation records in the evaluation record report, it is determined that the request report is credible; if the evaluation record analyzed by any one of the evaluation methods is different from the associated evaluation record in the evaluation record report, it is determined that the request report is not credible.

[0081] In a specific application scenario, to ensure that some important patient assessment items can be smoothly executed in the medical effect assessment, the request report corresponding to the patient assessment item will be re-evaluated. When it is determined that the request report is not credible, the re-evaluation request report corresponding to the request report and the re-evaluation assessment record report corresponding to the re-evaluation request report can also be obtained. Accordingly, the method includes: if it is determined that the request report is not credible through the first credibility assessment record, then determine whether there is a re-evaluation request report for the request report; if there is a re-evaluation request report, obtain the re-evaluation request report corresponding to the request report and the re-evaluation assessment record report corresponding to the re-evaluation request report; respectively analyze the re-evaluation assessment records corresponding to the re-evaluation request report by using a variety of preset assessment methods; compare the re-evaluation assessment records analyzed by the variety of preset assessment methods with the re-evaluation assessment records in the re-evaluation assessment record report; if the re-evaluation assessment records analyzed by the variety of preset assessment methods are all consistent with the re-evaluation assessment records in the re-evaluation assessment record report, then determine that the re-evaluation request report is credible; execute the request time point in the re-evaluation request report to complete the target patient assessment item.

[0082] Among them, the number of re-evaluation request reports can be one, two or more, and the number of re-evaluation request reports depends on the importance of the request reports involved in the patient assessment items of the medical effect assessment.

[0083] Step S40: If it is determined that the request report is credible through the first credibility assessment record, then execute the request time point according to the monitoring priority and perioperative key points of the request time point to complete the target patient assessment item.

[0084] For the embodiments of the present invention, if it is determined that the request report is credible, the medical effect assessment software will read the request time point in the request report, as well as the monitoring priority and perioperative key points of the request time point, and complete the specific patient assessment item according to the monitoring priority and perioperative key points; if it is determined that the request report is not credible, a prompt message of monitoring failure will be fed back to the assessment server and the monitoring process will be exited.

[0085] In some embodiments, before the medical effect assessment performs the request set monitoring, it is necessary to perform request set collection and encapsulation. For this process, as Figure 2 shown, it includes:

[0086] Step S50: Obtain the request set collection request transmitted by the assessment server.

[0087] Among them, the request set collection request is configured with a second request set tag and the number of collection requests. The second request set tag is used to point to the request report. The second request set tag and the first request set tag can be the same or different. For example, both the second request set tag and the first request set tag are X, jointly pointing to the request report 000. Another example is that the second request set tag is X and the first request set tag is Y, both pointing to the request report 000.

[0088] For the embodiments of the present invention, after the TACE treatment means is implemented, if the medical effect evaluation is successfully executed, the medical effect evaluation will feedback the status information of successful execution to the patient's family terminal through the evaluation server. After the patient's family terminal obtains the status information of successful execution of the medical effect evaluation, it will transmit a request set collection request to the medical effect evaluation through the evaluation server, and transmit the requests involved in the specific patient evaluation items to the medical effect evaluation item by item according to the set perioperative key points.

[0089] Step S60: Obtain the request time points transmitted item by item by the evaluation server according to the request set collection request.

[0090] For the embodiments of the present invention, after obtaining the request set collection request, the medical effect evaluation will obtain the requests forwarded by the evaluation server item by item according to the request set collection request.

[0091] Step S70: Determine whether the number of the request time points exceeds the number of collection requests.

[0092] For the embodiments of the present invention, if no request is obtained within the preset duration after the medical effect evaluation obtains a certain request, it means that the evaluation server has forwarded all requests. At this time, the medical effect evaluation will determine whether the obtained requests reach N according to the number of collection requests N configured in the request set collection request.

[0093] Step S80: If the number of the request time points exceeds the number of collection requests, output the request report corresponding to the second request set tag, collect and save the request time points in the request report, and record the monitoring priority and perioperative key points of the request time points in the request report.

[0094] For the embodiments of the present invention, if the requests obtained by the medical effect evaluation reach the number of collection requests (N), a request report will be created, and the obtained multiple requests will be collected and saved as request time points in the request report. At the same time, the monitoring priority and perioperative key points of the request time points will be recorded in the request report; if the requests obtained by the medical effect evaluation do not reach the number of collection requests, the collection and saving of the request time points will not be performed, and the medical effect evaluation needs to be re-executed and the request collection needs to be re-performed.

[0095] In the embodiments of the present invention, the medical effect evaluation can accurately determine whether all transmission requests have been obtained by collecting the number of requests, thereby further ensuring the credibility and accuracy of the collected request reports.

[0096] Among them, in this embodiment, SPSS 25.0 and Stata software are used for statistical analysis. All statistical tests are two-sided tests, with α = 0.05, and P < 0.05 is considered statistically significant.

[0097] Descriptive statistics: The general information of patients is described by rate, frequency, percentage, mean ± standard deviation. The incidence rate of symptoms of liver cancer patients at different time periods before and after TACE surgery is described by frequency and percentage, and the severity of symptoms and the scores of each dimension of quality of life are described by mean ± standard deviation.

[0098] Statistical inference: Repeated measures analysis of variance is used to compare the longitudinal changes in the number of perioperative symptoms, severity, and total quality of life scores of liver cancer patients at different time periods. At the same time, a latent variable mixed growth model is used to analyze the trends and changes in the data.

[0099] The data obtained from the two rounds of consultation results are entered and statistically analyzed using Excel 2012 and SPSS 25.0 software. SPSS 25.0 software is used to calculate the frequency and composition ratio of count data, the mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation of measurement data, etc. The expert familiarity coefficient is represented by Cs, the expert judgment coefficient is represented by Ca, and the expert authority coefficient is generally represented by Cr, and the calculation formula is Cr = (Cs + Ca) / 2. CV represents the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean, and its formula is: CV = (standard deviation / mean).

[0100] The experimental group is the postoperative stage intervention plan, and the control group is the postoperative routine intervention plan. The quality of life is selected as the main observed outcome index. Using the sample size calculation tool PASS15.0, according to previous literature reports, with a test power of 0.9, setting a as 0.05, after literature review, setting the parameter m1 as 65, m2 as 60, and d as 10. The ratio of the experimental group to the control group is 1:1, and the calculated sample sizes for the experimental group and the control group are 35 respectively. Considering the actual clinical situation and a 20% dropout rate, the final sample size is considered to be 84 cases, with 42 cases in each of the experimental group and the control group.

[0101] A pre-experiment is carried out. Five liver cancer TACE treatment patients who meet the inclusion requirements are selected for the pre-experiment implementation to evaluate the feasibility of the previously developed intervention plan and further improve the plan.

[0102] Main evaluation index: Quality of life;

[0103] Secondary evaluation indicators: satisfaction, incidence and severity of postoperative symptoms, etc.

[0104] The SPSS 25.0 software was used to establish a database. According to whether the data obeyed the normal distribution, the mean, standard deviation or median, quartile were used to describe measurement data, and the frequency, rate were used to describe count data. According to the nature of the data, the independent samples t-test, chi-square test, and rank sum test were used to compare whether there were differences in each index between the two groups.

[0105] Step S90: Adopt a variety of preset evaluation methods to evaluate and record the analysis of the request report, so as to output the evaluation record report corresponding to the request report.

[0106] After the collection of the request report is completed, in order to facilitate the subsequent credibility evaluation of the request report, in the embodiment of the present invention, while collecting the request report, it is also necessary to output the evaluation record report corresponding to the request report, and save the request report and the evaluation record report together.

[0107] In some embodiments, in order to ensure the sequential execution of the target patient evaluation items, for some important request reports, it is necessary to conduct a secondary evaluation. Accordingly, the method includes: determining the monitoring cycle length of the collected request report according to the target patient evaluation item; determining the secondary evaluation quantity corresponding to the request report according to the monitoring cycle length; and conducting a secondary evaluation on the request report according to the secondary evaluation quantity to obtain at least one secondary evaluation request report corresponding to the request report, and outputting the secondary evaluation record report corresponding to the at least one secondary evaluation request report.

[0108] Specifically, according to different patient evaluation items, the corresponding request reports can be divided into multiple monitoring cycle lengths. The higher the monitoring cycle length, the more times the request report needs to be secondarily evaluated; on the contrary, the lower the monitoring cycle length, the fewer times the request report needs to be secondarily evaluated. While conducting a secondary evaluation on the request report, it is also necessary to output the secondary evaluation record report corresponding to the secondary evaluation request report, and each secondary evaluation request report corresponds to a secondary evaluation record report. Among them, the monitoring cycle length can be divided into multiple according to actual business needs.

[0109] When specifically dividing the monitoring cycle length of a request report, it is necessary to consider not only the type of patient assessment items, but also the security risk and time sensitivity. Among them, for some relatively important patient assessment items, the monitoring cycle length corresponding to the request report will be relatively high. In addition, the operations involved in the request report may pose risks to system security and data security. Therefore, the higher the security risk, the higher the monitoring cycle length of the request report. Moreover, some request reports need to be executed within a specific time limit, and exceeding the time limit may have a serious impact on the business. Therefore, the monitoring cycle length of these request reports is relatively high. Based on the above factors affecting the monitoring cycle length of the request report (type of patient assessment items, security risk, and time sensitivity), the embodiments of the present invention can use a neural network method to predict the monitoring cycle length corresponding to the request report.

[0110] When predicting the monitoring cycle length corresponding to a request report based on the type of patient assessment items, the security risk, and time sensitivity of the request report, first determine the feature vector corresponding to the request report according to the type of patient assessment items, as well as the security risk and time sensitivity of the request report. Then, input the feature vector corresponding to the request report into a preset monitoring cycle length prediction model for monitoring cycle length prediction to obtain the monitoring cycle length corresponding to the request report. Among them, the preset monitoring cycle length prediction model can specifically be a neural network model, such as a multi-layer perceptron.

[0111] Specifically, first determine the associated feature components according to the type of patient assessment items. For example, the feature component corresponding to patient assessment item A is 001, the feature component corresponding to patient assessment item B is 010, and the feature component corresponding to patient assessment item C is 001. In addition, if the request report has a security risk, its corresponding feature component is 01, and if the request report does not have a security risk, its corresponding feature component is 10. Similarly, if the request set in the request report is time-sensitive, its corresponding feature component is 01, and conversely, if the request set in the request report is not time-sensitive, its corresponding feature component is 10. In this way, the feature components corresponding to each influencing factor can be determined. Then, horizontally splice the feature components to obtain the feature vector corresponding to the request report. Next, input the feature vector corresponding to the request report into a preset monitoring cycle length prediction model for monitoring cycle length prediction to obtain the probability values of the request report belonging to different monitoring cycle lengths. Finally, select the maximum probability value from each probability value, and determine the monitoring cycle length corresponding to the maximum probability value as the target monitoring cycle length corresponding to the request report. After determining the target monitoring cycle length corresponding to the request report, the number of secondary evaluations required for the request report can be determined.

[0112] In the embodiments of the present invention, the preset monitoring cycle length prediction model can accurately determine the monitoring cycle length corresponding to the request report, thereby ensuring the accuracy of the determination record of the secondary evaluation quantity.

[0113] In the embodiments of the present invention, in addition to collecting requests through the request set, saving the request time points involved in specific patient evaluation items inside the medical effect evaluation, and directly transmitting the pre-configured request report to the medical effect evaluation. The above two methods are both after the implementation of the TACE treatment method. Before the implementation of the TACE treatment method, the pre-configured request report can also be preset inside the medical effect evaluation.

[0114] In some embodiments, the request report inside the medical effect evaluation can also be updated. For this process, as Figure 3 shown, it includes:

[0115] Step S100: In response to the request for uploading the request report update package, obtain the request report update package and the update package evaluation record report.

[0116] Among them, the update package evaluation record report is used to verify the credibility of the request report update package.

[0117] For the embodiments of the present invention, after the patient's family terminal obtains the status information indicating the successful execution of the medical effect evaluation, the patient's family terminal will transmit a request for uploading the update package to the medical effect evaluation through the evaluation server. This upload request is configured with the request report update package and the update package evaluation record report.

[0118] Step S110: Evaluate the credibility of the request report update package based on the update package evaluation record report to obtain a second credibility evaluation record.

[0119] For the embodiments of the present invention, use the preset evaluation method to analyze the evaluation record of the request report update package. If this evaluation record is consistent with the evaluation record in the update package evaluation record report, it indicates that the request report update package is credible; if this evaluation record is inconsistent with the evaluation record in the update package evaluation record report, it indicates that the request report update package is not credible.

[0120] Step S120: If it is determined through the second credibility evaluation record that the request report update package has been credibly obtained, feedback evaluation success information to the evaluation server.

[0121] For the embodiments of the present invention, if the medical effect evaluation verifies that the request report update package is credible, it will feedback evaluation success information to the evaluation server, and the evaluation server will then feedback the evaluation success information to the patient's family terminal; if the medical effect evaluation verifies that the request report update package is not credible, it indicates that the update fails and needs to be uploaded again.

[0122] Step S130: Obtain the update request transmitted by the evaluation server based on the evaluation success information, and copy the request report corresponding to the request report update package to the associated location according to the update request.

[0123] For the embodiments of the present invention, after the patient's family terminal obtains the evaluation success information, it will transmit an update request to the evaluation server, and the evaluation server forwards the update request to the medical effect evaluation. The medical effect evaluation copies the request report corresponding to the request report update package to the location of the previously collected request report according to the update request, and replaces or updates the collected request report. Thus, the request report collected by the medical effect evaluation can be updated, thereby realizing the function upgrade of the medical effect evaluation.

[0124] Further, during the update process, it is necessary to monitor in real time whether the update request is executed normally, that is, whether the request report corresponding to the request report update package is saved at the specified location inside the medical effect evaluation. If the update request is not executed normally, the reason for failure needs to be analyzed.

[0125] Among them, the preset reason analysis model can specifically be a neural network model, such as a multi-layer perceptron, a convolutional neural network, and a support vector machine, etc.

[0126] In some embodiments, if the medical effect evaluation has not received the request transmitted by the evaluation server temporarily after execution, the default request time point can be executed first. For this process, as Figure 4 shown, it includes:

[0127] Step S140: Determine whether the platform request transmitted by the evaluation server is obtained within the preset duration after the secondary operation or first aid.

[0128] Among them, the preset duration can be set according to the actual business requirements, and the embodiments of the present invention do not make specific limitations on this.

[0129] For the embodiments of the present invention, after the secondary operation or first aid of the medical effect evaluation, it is determined whether the platform request sent by the evaluation server is obtained within the preset duration. If the platform request is obtained, the platform request is executed.

[0130] Step S150: If the platform request is not obtained within the preset duration, obtain the default request report and the default evaluation record report.

[0131] For the embodiments of the present invention, if the platform request is not obtained within the preset duration, it is determined whether there is a default request report. If there is no default request report, wait for the platform request; if there is a default request report, obtain the default evaluation record report corresponding to the default request report to evaluate the credibility of the default request report.

[0132] It should be noted that the default request report of the embodiment of the present invention can also be pre-saved in the medical effect evaluation internally through the request set acquisition request.

[0133] Step S160: Perform a credibility evaluation on the default request report according to the default evaluation record report to obtain a third credibility evaluation record.

[0134] For the embodiment of the present invention, a preset evaluation method can be used to analyze the evaluation record of the default request report, and then compare the analyzed evaluation record with the evaluation record in the default evaluation record report. If the two are inconsistent, it is determined that the default request report is not credible, and at this time, wait for the platform request; if the two are consistent, it is determined that the default request report is credible.

[0135] Step S170: If it is determined that the default request report is credible through the third credibility evaluation record, execute the request time point in the default request report.

[0136] Through the above design, the embodiment of the present invention can perform a series of default configurations or conventional symptoms after the second operation of medical effect evaluation.

[0137] Further, as Figures 1 - 4 a specific implementation of the method shown, this embodiment provides a liver cancer TACE efficacy evaluation system based on patient-reported outcomes, as Figure 5 shown. The system includes: a first acquisition module 101, a second acquisition module 102, an evaluation module 103, and an execution module 104.

[0138] The first acquisition module 101 can be used to acquire a request set monitoring request transmitted by an evaluation server, and the request set monitoring request is configured with a first request set tag.

[0139] The second acquisition module 102 can be used to acquire an associated request report and an evaluation record report corresponding to the request report according to the first request set tag. The request report records a request time point collected for the evaluation items of the target patient, as well as the monitoring priority and perioperative key points of the request time point. Divide the monitoring cycle length of the request report according to the multi-source TACE medical data of the request report, and perform a secondary evaluation on the request report according to the monitoring cycle length.

[0140] The evaluation module 103 can be used to perform a credibility evaluation on the request report according to the evaluation record report to obtain a first credibility evaluation record.

[0141] The execution module 104 can be used to, if it is determined that the request report is credible based on the first credibility evaluation record, execute the request time point according to the monitoring priority and perioperative key points at the request time point to complete the target patient evaluation project.

[0142] In some embodiments, the evaluation module 103 includes an analysis module, a comparison module, and a determination module.

[0143] The analysis module can be used to respectively analyze the evaluation records corresponding to the request report by using a variety of preset evaluation methods.

[0144] The comparison module can be used to compare the evaluation records analyzed by the variety of preset evaluation methods with the evaluation records in the evaluation record report.

[0145] The determination module can be used to, if the evaluation records analyzed by the variety of preset evaluation methods are all consistent with the evaluation records in the evaluation record report, determine that the request report is credible.

[0146] The determination module can also be used to, if the evaluation record analyzed by any one of the variety of preset evaluation methods is inconsistent with the evaluation record in the evaluation record report, determine that the request report is not credible.

[0147] In some embodiments, the system further includes a judgment module.

[0148] The judgment module can be used to, if it is determined that the request report is not credible based on the first credibility evaluation record, determine whether there is a secondary evaluation request report for the request report.

[0149] The second acquisition module 102 can also be used to, if there is a secondary evaluation request report, acquire the secondary evaluation request report corresponding to the request report and the secondary evaluation record report corresponding to the secondary evaluation request report.

[0150] The evaluation module 103 can also be used to respectively analyze the secondary evaluation records corresponding to the secondary evaluation request report by using a variety of preset evaluation methods; compare the secondary evaluation records analyzed by the variety of preset evaluation methods with the secondary evaluation records in the secondary evaluation record report; if the secondary evaluation records analyzed by the variety of preset evaluation methods are all consistent with the secondary evaluation records in the secondary evaluation record report, determine that the secondary evaluation request report is credible.

[0151] The execution module 104 can also be used to execute the request time point in the secondary evaluation request report to complete the target patient evaluation project.

[0152] In some embodiments, the system further includes: a collection module and an analysis module.

[0153] The first acquisition module 101 may also be configured to acquire a request set acquisition request transmitted by the evaluation server, where the request set acquisition request is configured with a second request set tag and the number of acquisition requests.

[0154] The first acquisition module 101 may also be configured to acquire the request time points transmitted one by one by the evaluation server according to the request set acquisition request.

[0155] The determination module may also be configured to determine whether the number of the request time points exceeds the number of acquisition requests.

[0156] The collection module may be configured to, if the number of the request time points exceeds the number of acquisition requests, output a request report corresponding to the second request set tag, collect and save the request time points in the request report, and record the monitoring priority and perioperative key points of the request time points in the request report.

[0157] The analysis module may be configured to perform evaluation record analysis on the request report by using a variety of preset evaluation methods to output an evaluation record report corresponding to the request report.

[0158] In some embodiments, the system further includes: a secondary evaluation module.

[0159] The secondary evaluation module may be configured to determine the monitoring cycle length of the acquired request report according to the target patient evaluation item; determine the secondary evaluation quantity corresponding to the request report according to the monitoring cycle length; perform secondary evaluation on the request report according to the secondary evaluation quantity to obtain at least one secondary evaluation request report corresponding to the request report, and output a secondary evaluation record report corresponding to the at least one secondary evaluation request report.

[0160] In some embodiments, the system further includes: an update module.

[0161] The update module may be configured to, in response to a request report update package upload request, acquire a request report update package and an update package evaluation record report; perform a credibility evaluation on the request report update package according to the update package evaluation record report to obtain a second credibility evaluation record; if it is determined through the second credibility evaluation record that the request report update package has been credibly acquired, feedback evaluation success information to the evaluation server; acquire an update request transmitted by the evaluation server according to the evaluation success information, and copy the request report corresponding to the request report update package to an associated location according to the update request.

[0162] In some embodiments, the determination module may further be configured to determine whether a platform request transmitted by the evaluation server is obtained within a preset duration after a secondary operation or first aid.

[0163] The second acquisition module 102 may further be configured to, if the platform request is not obtained within the preset duration, acquire a default request report and a default evaluation record report.

[0164] The evaluation module 103 may further be configured to perform a credibility evaluation on the default request report according to the default evaluation record report to obtain a third credibility evaluation record.

[0165] The execution module 104 may further be configured to, if it is determined through the third credibility evaluation record that the default request report is credible, execute the request time point in the default request report.

[0166] It should be noted that for other associated descriptions of the functional modules involved in the liver cancer TACE efficacy evaluation system based on patient-reported outcomes provided in this embodiment, reference may be made to Figures 1 - 4 the corresponding descriptions therein, which will not be elaborated herein.

[0167] In several embodiments provided in the present application, it should be understood that the disclosed systems, systems, and methods may be implemented in other ways. For example, the system embodiments described above are merely illustrative. For example, the division of modules is only a logical function division. In actual implementation, there may be other division methods. For example, multiple modules or components may be combined or integrated into another system, or some features may be ignored or not executed. Another point is that the displayed or discussed couplings or direct couplings or communication connections to each other may be through some interfaces, indirect couplings or communication connections of systems or modules, and may be in electrical, mechanical, or other forms.

[0168] In addition, the functional modules in each embodiment of the present application may be integrated in one processing module, or each module may exist physically alone, or two or more modules may be integrated in one module. The above-mentioned integrated modules may be implemented in the form of hardware or in the form of software functional modules. The above is only the implementation manner of the present application, and does not limit the patent scope of the present application accordingly. Any equivalent structural or equivalent process transformation made by using the content of the specification and drawings of the present application, or directly or indirectly applied in other related technical fields, shall be equally included in the patent protection scope of the present application.

[0169] The specific embodiments of the invention have been described in detail above, but they are only examples, and the present application is not limited to the specific embodiments described above. For those skilled in the art, any equivalent modifications or substitutions to the invention are also within the scope of the present application. Therefore, equivalent transformations, modifications, improvements, etc. made without departing from the spirit and principles of the present application should all be covered within the scope of the present application.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the efficacy of TACE for liver cancer based on patient-reported outcomes, characterized in that: include: Obtaining a request set monitoring request transmitted by an evaluation server, wherein the request set monitoring request is configured with a first request set tag; According to the first request set label, an associated request report and an evaluation record report corresponding to the request report are obtained, wherein the request report records the request time point for collecting evaluation items for the target patient, as well as the monitoring priority and perioperative key points at the request time point, and according to the multi-source TACE medical data of the request report, the monitoring cycle length of the request report is divided, and the request report is re-evaluated according to the monitoring cycle length; Performing a credibility assessment on the request report according to the assessment record report to obtain a first credibility assessment record; If the requested report is determined to be credible through the first credibility assessment record, executing the requested time point according to the monitoring priority and perioperative key points of the requested time point to complete the target patient assessment item; The step of performing a credibility assessment on the request report according to the assessment record report to obtain a first credibility assessment record includes: Using a plurality of preset evaluation methods to respectively analyze the evaluation records corresponding to the request report; comparing the assessment records analyzed by the plurality of preset assessment methods with the assessment records in the assessment record report; If the evaluation records analyzed by the plurality of preset evaluation methods are all consistent with the evaluation records in the evaluation record report, then it is determined that the request report is credible; If the evaluation record analyzed by any one of the plurality of preset evaluation methods is inconsistent with the evaluation record in the evaluation record report, it is determined that the request report is not credible.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that The method further comprises: If it is determined through the first credibility evaluation record that the request report is not credible, determining whether the request report has a secondary evaluation request report; If a secondary assessment request report exists, obtaining a secondary assessment request report corresponding to the request report and a secondary assessment record report corresponding to the secondary assessment request report; Using a plurality of preset evaluation methods to respectively analyze the secondary evaluation records corresponding to the secondary evaluation request report; comparing the secondary assessment evaluation records analyzed by the plurality of preset evaluation methods with the secondary assessment evaluation records in the secondary assessment evaluation record report; If the secondary assessment records analyzed by the plurality of preset assessment methods are all consistent with the secondary assessment records in the secondary assessment record report, then the secondary assessment request report is determined to be credible; Execute the requested time point in the secondary assessment request report to complete the target patient assessment item.

3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that Before obtaining the request set monitoring request transmitted by the evaluation server, the method further includes: Obtaining a request set collection request transmitted by the evaluation server, wherein the request set collection request is configured with a second request set label and a number of collection requests; Collecting requests according to the request set, obtaining request time points transmitted one by one by the evaluation server; Determine whether the number of items at the requested time point exceeds the number of items of the acquisition request; If the number of the requested time points exceeds the number of the collection requests, a request report corresponding to the second request set label is output, the requested time points are collected and saved in the request report, and the monitoring priority and perioperative key points of the requested time points are recorded in the request report; A plurality of preset evaluation methods are used to perform evaluation record analysis on the request report to output the evaluation record report corresponding to the request report.

4. The method according to claim 3, characterized in that The method further comprises: Determining the monitoring period length of the requested report collected based on the target patient assessment items; Determining the number of secondary evaluations corresponding to the request report according to the length of the monitoring period; According to the secondary evaluation quantity, the request report is secondary evaluated to obtain at least one secondary evaluation request report corresponding to the request report, and a secondary evaluation record report corresponding to the at least one secondary evaluation request report is output.

5. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that Before obtaining the request set monitoring request transmitted by the evaluation server, the method further includes: In response to the request for the report update package registration, obtaining the request report update package and the update package evaluation record report; Performing a credibility evaluation on the request report update package according to the update package evaluation record report to obtain a second credibility evaluation record; If it is determined through the second credibility evaluation record that the request report update package has been credibly obtained, feedback evaluation success information to the evaluation server; An update request transmitted by the evaluation server according to the evaluation success information is obtained, and according to the update request, a request report corresponding to the request report update package is copied to an associated location.

6. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 5, characterized in that: The method further comprises: Determine whether the platform request transmitted by the evaluation server is obtained within a preset time after the second surgery or emergency treatment; If the platform request is not obtained within the preset time, a default request report and a default evaluation record report are obtained; Performing a credibility evaluation on the default request report according to the default evaluation record report to obtain a third credibility evaluation record; If it is determined through the third credibility evaluation record that the default request report is credible, the request time point in the default request report is executed.

7. A TACE efficacy evaluation system for liver cancer based on patient-reported outcomes, characterized by: include: A first acquisition module, configured to acquire a request set monitoring request transmitted by an evaluation server, wherein the request set monitoring request is configured with a first request set tag; A second acquisition module is used to acquire, based on the first request set label, an associated request report and an evaluation record report corresponding to the request report, wherein the request report records the request time point for collecting evaluation items for the target patient, as well as the monitoring priority and perioperative key points at the request time point, divide the monitoring cycle length of the request report based on the multi-source TACE medical data of the request report, and perform a secondary evaluation on the request report based on the monitoring cycle length; An evaluation module, configured to perform a credibility evaluation on the request report according to the evaluation record report to obtain a first credibility evaluation record; an execution module, configured to execute the requested time point according to the monitoring priority and perioperative key points of the requested time point to complete the target patient assessment item if the requested report is determined to be credible through the first credibility assessment record; The liver cancer TACE efficacy evaluation system based on patient-reported outcomes is used to execute the liver cancer TACE efficacy evaluation method based on patient-reported outcomes as described in any one of claims 1-6.

Images