A urology research team can pull a list of patients with the right diagnosis and still be a long way from knowing who belongs on the screening list. The next question is what happened over the course of each patient’s care.
In bladder and prostate cancer, eligibility can turn on sequence and timing: when a biopsy was performed, which therapy came first, whether disease recurred after treatment, how progression was documented, and how recently a procedure or drug was given. Two patients with the same diagnosis can land in very different screening categories once that timeline comes into view.
Chronology becomes part of the recruitment data.
In bladder cancer, previous treatment and the site of recurrence can influence what happens next. Current studies can also define eligibility around pathology, prior intravesical therapy, recurrence, and the timing of recent procedures or treatments.
Those requirements ask the research team to understand a sequence rather than confirm a single fact: diagnosis, pathology, treatment, recurrence, and timing.
Prostate cancer creates its own version of the problem. Current studies may distinguish patients by prior systemic therapy, PSA progression, radiographic findings, or progression on a particular treatment. A chart that says “prostate cancer” doesn’t answer those questions. The answer develops across visits, scans, lab trends, and treatment decisions.
EHR searches are often good at finding snapshots: a diagnosis code, a medication, a lab result, a procedure. Trial screening frequently depends on how those snapshots relate to one another.
Was the treatment given before or after progression? Was a pathology finding part of the original diagnosis or a later recurrence? Did imaging document a change that altered the patient’s disease status? How long ago did a relevant therapy or procedure occur?
When research staff have to reconstruct that chronology manually, screening slows down. They’re opening records, reconciling dates, and piecing together how a patient’s story changed over time before they can decide whether the chart deserves deeper review.
Third Opinion’s urology-oncology work focuses on prostate and bladder cancer, where its platform analyzes structured and unstructured EHR data, including pathology reports, biopsies, clinical notes, scans, and labs, against clinical-trial eligibility criteria.
For this kind of recruitment, a treatment record means more when it can be viewed alongside pathology, imaging, progression, and the dates around them. Third Opinion is designed to surface relevant evidence from those records so research teams can review a more complete clinical story without rebuilding it chart by chart.
Clinical teams still decide what that story means for a particular study. The software helps make the history easier to see.
Research-focused urology practices already hold years of clinical history on the patients they serve. That history becomes a stronger recruitment asset when teams can follow the sequence of care instead of treating each field or document as a separate clue.
In bladder and prostate cancer, timing can change the screening picture. When the longitudinal record is easier to interpret, research teams have a better chance of recognizing patients whose trial relevance only becomes apparent when their history is viewed in order.
Third Opinion helps research-focused practices enroll more patients, onboard more studies, and fulfill industry data requests while giving patients the opportunity to participate in potentially life-saving treatments. Founded by physicians, Third Opinion is built for patients and researchers.
Contact Third Opinion for more information.