Literature DB >> 31216369

Concordance in postsurgical radioactive iodine therapy recommendations between Watson for Oncology and clinical practice in patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma.

Mijin Kim1, Bo Hyun Kim1, Jeong Mi Kim1, Eun Heui Kim1, Keunyoung Kim2, Kyoungjune Pak2, Yun Kyung Jeon1, Sang Soo Kim1, Heeseung Park3, Taewoo Kang3, Byung Joo Lee4, In Joo Kim1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, the indications for radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy in patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC) are unclear; treatment decisions are based on physician judgment. The objective of the current study was to identify the degree of concordance between postsurgical RAI therapy recommended by Watson for Oncology (WFO), a clinical decision support system for oncological therapy, and that recommended by physicians for patients with DTC.
METHODS: The current retrospective cohort study included 207 patients with DTC who underwent thyroidectomy between 2017 and 2018. Treatment recommendations were considered concordant if WFO rendered recommendations consistent with those of the physicians.
RESULTS: Treatment recommendations were concordant for 160 patients (77%). The concordance rate significantly differed according to the American Thyroid Association (ATA) risk category (P < .001) and American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM stage (seventh edition; P = .004). Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that treatment recommendations were significantly less likely to be concordant in patients with ATA intermediate-risk and stage III disease compared with those with ATA low-risk and stage I disease (odds ratio, 0.16 [P < .001] and OR, 0.35 [P = .004], respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The authors believe the concordance rate between postsurgical RAI therapy recommendations rendered by WFO and those rendered by physicians was too low to justify adopting WFO for the comprehensive screening of patients with DTC. This is particularly true among patients with ATA intermediate-risk and stage III disease, reflecting differences in practice patterns between the United States (where WFO was calibrated) and Korea. Hence, WFO is not a substitute for physicians, and also may require regional customization to improve its assistive capability.
© 2019 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Watson for Oncology; artificial intelligence; iodine radioisotopes; thyroid carcinoma

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31216369     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32166

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  5 in total

1.  Concordance Study in Hepatectomy Recommendations Between Watson for Oncology and Clinical Practice for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma in China.

Authors:  Weiqi Zhang; Shuo Qi; Jiaming Zhuo; Sai Wen; Chihua Fang
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 2.  Updates on the Management of Thyroid Cancer.

Authors:  Katherine A Araque; Sriram Gubbi; Joanna Klubo-Gwiezdzinska
Journal:  Horm Metab Res       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 2.936

3.  Early experience with Watson for Oncology: a clinical decision-support system for prostate cancer treatment recommendations.

Authors:  Seong Hyeon Yu; Myung Soo Kim; Ho Seok Chung; Eu Chang Hwang; Seung Il Jung; Taek Won Kang; Dongdeuk Kwon
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-04-25       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 4.  Pragmatic Considerations on Clinical Decision Support from the 2019 Literature.

Authors:  C Duclos; J Bouaud
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2020-08-21

5.  Physicians' Perceptions of and Satisfaction With Artificial Intelligence in Cancer Treatment: A Clinical Decision Support System Experience and Implications for Low-Middle-Income Countries.

Authors:  Srinivas Emani; Angela Rui; Hermano Alexandre Lima Rocha; Rubina F Rizvi; Sergio Ferreira Juaçaba; Gretchen Purcell Jackson; David W Bates
Journal:  JMIR Cancer       Date:  2022-04-07
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.