PURPOSE: IBM Watson for Oncology trained by Memorial Sloan Kettering (WFO) is a clinical decision support tool designed to assist physicians in choosing therapies for patients with cancer. Although substantial technical and clinical expertise has guided the development of WFO, patients' perspectives of this technology have not been examined. To facilitate the optimal delivery and implementation of this tool, we solicited patients' perceptions and preferences about WFO. METHODS: We conducted nine focus groups with 46 patients with breast, lung, or colorectal cancer with various treatment experiences: neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy, chemotherapy for metastatic disease, or systemic therapy through a clinical trial. In-depth qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed to describe patients' attitudes and perspectives concerning WFO and how it may be used in clinical care. RESULTS: Analysis of the qualitative data identified three main themes: patient acceptance of WFO, physician competence and the physician-patient relationship, and practical and logistic aspects of WFO. Overall, participant feedback suggested high levels of patient interest, perceived value, and acceptance of WFO, as long as it was used as a supplementary tool to inform their physicians' decision making. Participants also described important concerns, including the need for strict processes to guarantee the integrity and completeness of the data presented and the possibility of physician overreliance on WFO. CONCLUSION: Participants generally reacted favorably to the prospect of WFO being integrated into the cancer treatment decision-making process, but with caveats regarding the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the data powering the system and the potential for giving WFO excessive emphasis in the decision-making process. Addressing patients' perspectives will be critical to ensuring the smooth integration of WFO into cancer care.
PURPOSE: IBM Watson for Oncology trained by Memorial Sloan Kettering (WFO) is a clinical decision support tool designed to assist physicians in choosing therapies for patients with cancer. Although substantial technical and clinical expertise has guided the development of WFO, patients' perspectives of this technology have not been examined. To facilitate the optimal delivery and implementation of this tool, we solicited patients' perceptions and preferences about WFO. METHODS: We conducted nine focus groups with 46 patients with breast, lung, or colorectal cancer with various treatment experiences: neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy, chemotherapy for metastatic disease, or systemic therapy through a clinical trial. In-depth qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed to describe patients' attitudes and perspectives concerning WFO and how it may be used in clinical care. RESULTS: Analysis of the qualitative data identified three main themes: patient acceptance of WFO, physician competence and the physician-patient relationship, and practical and logistic aspects of WFO. Overall, participant feedback suggested high levels of patient interest, perceived value, and acceptance of WFO, as long as it was used as a supplementary tool to inform their physicians' decision making. Participants also described important concerns, including the need for strict processes to guarantee the integrity and completeness of the data presented and the possibility of physician overreliance on WFO. CONCLUSION:Participants generally reacted favorably to the prospect of WFO being integrated into the cancer treatment decision-making process, but with caveats regarding the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the data powering the system and the potential for giving WFO excessive emphasis in the decision-making process. Addressing patients' perspectives will be critical to ensuring the smooth integration of WFO into cancer care.
Authors: Marcus A Neubauer; J Russell Hoverman; Michael Kolodziej; Lonny Reisman; Stephen K Gruschkus; Susan Hoang; Albert A Alva; Marilyn McArthur; Michael Forsyth; Todd Rothermel; Roy A Beveridge Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2009-12-30 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: J Russell Hoverman; Thomas H Cartwright; Debra A Patt; Janet L Espirito; Matthew P Clayton; Jody S Garey; Terrance J Kopp; Michael Kolodziej; Marcus A Neubauer; Kathryn Fitch; Bruce Pyenson; Roy A Beveridge Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Victoria A Shaffer; C Adam Probst; Edgar C Merkle; Hal R Arkes; Mitchell A Medow Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2012-07-20 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Michael Kolodziej; J Russell Hoverman; Jody S Garey; Janet Espirito; Sheetal Sheth; Aimee Ginsburg; Marcus A Neubauer; Debra Patt; Barry Brooks; Charles White; Mark Sitarik; Roger Anderson; Roy Beveridge Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Ilana B Solomon; Sarah McGraw; Jenny Shen; Adem Albayrak; Gil Alterovitz; Melanie Davies; Catherine Del Vecchio Fitz; Rachel A Freedman; Lisa N Lopez; Lynette M Sholl; Eliezer Van Allen; Joanne Mortimer; Marwan Fakih; Sumanta Pal; Karen L Reckamp; Yuan Yuan; Stacy W Gray Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2020-04-14
Authors: Donna M McNamara; Stuart L Goldberg; Lisa Latts; Deena M Atieh Graham; Stanley E Waintraub; Andrew D Norden; Cody Landstrom; Andrew L Pecora; John Hervey; Eric V Schultz; Ching-Kun Wang; Nicholas Jungbluth; Phillip M Francis; Jane L Snowdon Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-09-11 Impact factor: 4.452