@Article{info:doi/10.2196/52296,
author="Xu, Yicong
and Zhou, Jingya
and Li, Hongxia
and Cai, Dong
and Zhu, Huanbing
and Pan, Shengdong",
title="Improvements in Neoplasm Classification in the International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision: Systematic Comparative Study With the Chinese Clinical Modification of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision",
journal="Interact J Med Res",
year="2024",
month="Mar",
day="8",
volume="13",
pages="e52296",
keywords="Chinese Clinical Modification of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision; ICD-10; ICD-10-CCM; ICD-11; improvement; International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision; International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision; International Classification of Diseases; neoplasm; transition",
abstract="Background: The International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision (ICD-11) improved neoplasm classification. Objective: We aimed to study the alterations in the ICD-11 compared to the Chinese Clinical Modification of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10-CCM) for neoplasm classification and to provide evidence supporting the transition to the ICD-11. Methods: We downloaded public data files from the World Health Organization and the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China. The ICD-10-CCM neoplasm codes were manually recoded with the ICD-11 coding tool, and an ICD-10-CCM/ICD-11 mapping table was generated. The existing files and the ICD-10-CCM/ICD-11 mapping table were used to compare the coding, classification, and expression features of neoplasms between the ICD-10-CCM and ICD-11. Results: The ICD-11 coding structure for neoplasms has dramatically changed. It provides advantages in coding granularity, coding capacity, and expression flexibility. In total, 27.4{\%} (207/755) of ICD-10 codes and 38{\%} (1359/3576) of ICD-10-CCM codes underwent grouping changes, which was a significantly different change ($\chi$21=30.3; P<.001). Notably, 67.8{\%} (2424/3576) of ICD-10-CCM codes could be fully represented by ICD-11 codes. Another 7{\%} (252/3576) could be fully described by uniform resource identifiers. The ICD-11 had a significant difference in expression ability among the 4 ICD-10-CCM groups ($\chi$23=93.7; P<.001), as well as a considerable difference between the changed and unchanged groups ($\chi$21=74.7; P<.001). Expression ability negatively correlated with grouping changes (r=--.144; P<.001). In the ICD-10-CCM/ICD-11 mapping table, 60.5{\%} (2164/3576) of codes were postcoordinated. The top 3 postcoordinated results were specific anatomy (1907/3576, 53.3{\%}), histopathology (201/3576, 5.6{\%}), and alternative severity 2 (70/3576, 2{\%}). The expression ability of postcoordination was not fully reflected. Conclusions: The ICD-11 includes many improvements in neoplasm classification, especially the new coding system, improved expression ability, and good semantic interoperability. The transition to the ICD-11 will inevitably bring challenges for clinicians, coders, policy makers and IT technicians, and many preparations will be necessary. ",
issn="1929-073X",
doi="10.2196/52296",
url="https://www.i-jmr.org/2024/1/e52296",
url="https://doi.org/10.2196/52296",
url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38457228"
}