Julian C Hong1,2,3, Neville C W Eclov3, Nicole H Dalal4, Samantha M Thomas5,6, Sarah J Stephens3, Mary Malicki3, Stacey Shields3, Alyssa Cobb3, Yvonne M Mowery3,6, Donna Niedzwiecki5,6, Jessica D Tenenbaum5, Manisha Palta3,6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 2. Bakar Computational Health Sciences Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC. 4. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 5. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC. 6. Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Abstract
PURPOSE:Patients undergoing outpatient radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiation (CRT) frequently require acute care (emergency department evaluation or hospitalization). Machine learning (ML) may guide interventions to reduce this risk. There are limited prospective studies investigating the clinical impact of ML in health care. The objective of this study was to determine whether ML can identify high-risk patients and direct mandatory twice-weekly clinical evaluation to reduce acute care visits during treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: During this single-institution randomized quality improvement study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04277650), 963 outpatient adult courses of RT and CRT started from January 7 to June 30, 2019, were evaluated by an ML algorithm. Among these, 311 courses identified by ML as high risk (> 10% risk of acute care during treatment) were randomized to standard once-weekly clinical evaluation (n = 157) or mandatory twice-weekly evaluation (n = 154). Both arms allowed additional evaluations on the basis of clinician discretion. The primary end point was the rate of acute care visits during RT. Model performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) and decile calibration plots. RESULTS: Twice-weekly evaluation reduced rates of acute care during treatment from 22.3% to 12.3% (difference, -10.0%; 95% CI, -18.3 to -1.6; relative risk, 0.556; 95% CI, 0.332 to 0.924; P = .02). Low-risk patients had a 2.7% acute care rate. Model discrimination was good in high- and low-risk patients undergoing standard once-weekly evaluation (AUC, 0.851). CONCLUSION: In this prospective randomized study, MLaccurately triaged patients undergoing RT and CRT, directing clinical management with reduced acute care rates versus standard of care. This prospective study demonstrates the potential benefit of ML in health care and offers opportunities to enhance care quality and reduce health care costs.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:Patients undergoing outpatient radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiation (CRT) frequently require acute care (emergency department evaluation or hospitalization). Machine learning (ML) may guide interventions to reduce this risk. There are limited prospective studies investigating the clinical impact of ML in health care. The objective of this study was to determine whether ML can identify high-risk patients and direct mandatory twice-weekly clinical evaluation to reduce acute care visits during treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: During this single-institution randomized quality improvement study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04277650), 963 outpatient adult courses of RT and CRT started from January 7 to June 30, 2019, were evaluated by an ML algorithm. Among these, 311 courses identified by ML as high risk (> 10% risk of acute care during treatment) were randomized to standard once-weekly clinical evaluation (n = 157) or mandatory twice-weekly evaluation (n = 154). Both arms allowed additional evaluations on the basis of clinician discretion. The primary end point was the rate of acute care visits during RT. Model performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) and decile calibration plots. RESULTS: Twice-weekly evaluation reduced rates of acute care during treatment from 22.3% to 12.3% (difference, -10.0%; 95% CI, -18.3 to -1.6; relative risk, 0.556; 95% CI, 0.332 to 0.924; P = .02). Low-risk patients had a 2.7% acute care rate. Model discrimination was good in high- and low-risk patients undergoing standard once-weekly evaluation (AUC, 0.851). CONCLUSION: In this prospective randomized study, ML accurately triaged patients undergoing RT and CRT, directing clinical management with reduced acute care rates versus standard of care. This prospective study demonstrates the potential benefit of ML in health care and offers opportunities to enhance care quality and reduce health care costs.
Authors: Olivier Morin; Martin Vallières; Steve Braunstein; Jorge Barrios Ginart; Taman Upadhaya; Henry C Woodruff; Alex Zwanenburg; Avishek Chatterjee; Javier E Villanueva-Meyer; Gilmer Valdes; William Chen; Julian C Hong; Sue S Yom; Timothy D Solberg; Steffen Löck; Jan Seuntjens; Catherine Park; Philippe Lambin Journal: Nat Cancer Date: 2021-07-22
Authors: Brian J Douthit; Rachel L Walden; Kenrick Cato; Cynthia P Coviak; Christopher Cruz; Fabio D'Agostino; Thompson Forbes; Grace Gao; Theresa A Kapetanovic; Mikyoung A Lee; Lisiane Pruinelli; Mary A Schultz; Ann Wieben; Alvin D Jeffery Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Christopher W Noel; Rinku Sutradhar; Lesley Gotlib Conn; David Forner; Wing C Chan; Rui Fu; Julie Hallet; Natalie G Coburn; Antoine Eskander Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2022-08-01 Impact factor: 8.961
Authors: Edmund M Qiao; Alexander S Qian; Vinit Nalawade; Rohith S Voora; Nikhil V Kotha; Lucas K Vitzthum; James D Murphy Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2022-06
Authors: Arthur S Hong; Danh Q Nguyen; Simon Craddock Lee; D Mark Courtney; John W Sweetenham; Navid Sadeghi; John V Cox; Hannah Fullington; Ethan A Halm Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-05-26
Authors: Michael F Gensheimer; Sonya Aggarwal; Kathryn R K Benson; Justin N Carter; A Solomon Henry; Douglas J Wood; Scott G Soltys; Steven Hancock; Erqi Pollom; Nigam H Shah; Daniel T Chang Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 4.497