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.

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 (χ²₁=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 (χ²₃=93.7; P<.001), as well as a considerable difference between the changed and unchanged groups (χ²₁=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.