PURPOSE: Urological oncologists have difficulty providing optimal personalized care due to rapid alterations in scientific research results, medical advancements, and treatment guidelines. IBM's Watson for Oncology (WFO) is an artificial intelligence clinical decision-support system that assists oncologists with evidence-based treatment recommendations. In the present study, we examined the level of concordance between the treatment recommendations for prostate cancer according to WFO and the actual treatments that the patients received in the department of urology. METHODS: We enrolled 201 patients who received prostate cancer treatment between January 2018 and June 2018. WFO provided treatment recommendations using clinical data in three categories: recommended, for consideration, and not recommended. These were compared with the actual treatments received by patients. Prostate cancer treatments were considered concordant if the received treatments were included in the "recommended" or "for consideration" categories by WFO. RESULTS: The patients' mean age was 71.2 years. There were 60 (29.9%) and 114 (56.7%) patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score ≥ 1 and non-organ confined disease (stage III/IV), respectively. The overall prostate cancer treatment concordance rate was 73.6% ("recommended": 53.2%; "for consideration": 20.4%). An ECOG performance score ≥ 1 and older age (≥ 75 years) were significantly associated with discordance (p = 0.001 and p = 0.026, respectively) on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: In the present study, the treatment recommendations by WFO and the actual received treatments in the department of urology showed a relatively high concordance rate in prostate cancer patients.
PURPOSE: Urological oncologists have difficulty providing optimal personalized care due to rapid alterations in scientific research results, medical advancements, and treatment guidelines. IBM's Watson for Oncology (WFO) is an artificial intelligence clinical decision-support system that assists oncologists with evidence-based treatment recommendations. In the present study, we examined the level of concordance between the treatment recommendations for prostate cancer according to WFO and the actual treatments that the patients received in the department of urology. METHODS: We enrolled 201 patients who received prostate cancer treatment between January 2018 and June 2018. WFO provided treatment recommendations using clinical data in three categories: recommended, for consideration, and not recommended. These were compared with the actual treatments received by patients. Prostate cancer treatments were considered concordant if the received treatments were included in the "recommended" or "for consideration" categories by WFO. RESULTS: The patients' mean age was 71.2 years. There were 60 (29.9%) and 114 (56.7%) patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score ≥ 1 and non-organ confined disease (stage III/IV), respectively. The overall prostate cancer treatment concordance rate was 73.6% ("recommended": 53.2%; "for consideration": 20.4%). An ECOG performance score ≥ 1 and older age (≥ 75 years) were significantly associated with discordance (p = 0.001 and p = 0.026, respectively) on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: In the present study, the treatment recommendations by WFO and the actual received treatments in the department of urology showed a relatively high concordance rate in prostate cancerpatients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Concordance; Prostate cancer treatment; Recommendation; Watson for Oncology
Authors: S P Somashekhar; M-J Sepúlveda; S Puglielli; A D Norden; E H Shortliffe; C Rohit Kumar; A Rauthan; N Arun Kumar; P Patil; K Rhee; Y Ramya Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Philip Cornford; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Maria De Santis; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Thomas B Lam; Malcolm D Mason; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Thomas Wiegel; Nicolas Mottet Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Nicolas Mottet; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Nicola Fossati; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Thomas B Lam; Malcolm D Mason; Vsevolod B Matveev; Paul C Moldovan; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Thomas Van den Broeck; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Thomas Wiegel; Philip Cornford Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Tait D Shanafelt; William J Gradishar; Michael Kosty; Daniel Satele; Helen Chew; Leora Horn; Ben Clark; Amy E Hanley; Quyen Chu; John Pippen; Jeff Sloan; Marilyn Raymond Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-01-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Youn I Choi; Jun-Won Chung; Kyoung Oh Kim; Kwang An Kwon; Yoon Jae Kim; Dong Kyun Park; Sung Min Ahn; So Hyun Park; Sun Jin Sym; Dong Bok Shin; Young Saing Kim; Ki Hoon Sung; Jeong-Heum Baek; Uhn Lee Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2019-02-03